Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bridlington Harbour Provisional Order Bill,

Copyright Order Confirmation (Mechanical Instruments: Royalties) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health (Halifax and West Riding Provisional Orders) Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Gillingham Extension) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Swindon Extension) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Sir JOHN POWER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement as to the future status of Tangier?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I regret that the committee of experts have not yet completed their labours. I hope, however, to be in a position to make a statement early next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

ARMS IMPORTATION.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he
has any facts that will show the value in pounds sterling of arms that have been imported into China for the 12 months ending to the last convenient date; and can he give particulars from which arms-producing Powers this material was shipped?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The most recent returns of the Chinese Maritime Customs show that importation in 1926 amounted to a total nett value of Taels 2,120,476, equivalent at the average rate of exchange to £330,220. These figures cover only arms and munitions imported through the Customs at the Treaty Ports, and therefore do not include consignments arriving overland from the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, regarding which no complete statistics are available. With the hon. Member's permission, I will have the detailed particulars circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I should explain that these figures include arms imported for British and other foreign naval and military forces in China as well as for such institutions as the Chinese Maritime Customs and the Shanghai Volunteer Corps; and also that the various countries named are those from which the arms were shipped, and are not necessarily those of real origin.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that, since the figures for 1926–27, there has been a great increase? Has the right hon. Gentleman had reports to that effect from our representatives, and has not the progress of the country greatly increased, lately?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am proposing to give the hon. Member all the figures that I have. I do not recall any report to the effect that the hon. Member has stated.

Mr. MACLEAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any real ground upon which he bases his statement that arms had been or were being smuggled into China from the Union of Soviet Russia?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not use the word "smuggled." I said "arriving" from the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

Following are detailed particulars:


Imported from
Value in Haikuan Taels.


Hong Kong
131,881


French Indo-China
166,715


British India
—


Great Britain
84,849


Norway
—


Sweden
66,039


Germany
1,261,252


Netherlands
—


Belgium
82


France
65,552


Switzerland
—


Italy
4,054


Korea
209


Japan (including Formosa)
368,214


Philippine Islands
19,644


Canada
225


United States of America (including Hawaii)
31,907


Direct Gross Import
2,200,623


Re-exported Abroad
80,147


Net Import from abroad
2,120,476

BOXER INDEMMNITY.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take with a view to currying out the recommendations of the Boxer Indemnity Commission?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government desire to carry out the recommendations of the Buxton Committee, and to pass as soon as possible the legislation required for putting them into effect by the creation of a Board of Trustees to be established in China. They regret the prolonged delay which has occurred. But this has not been due to any change of policy or lack of interest in the question on their part. They have been prevented from taking the necessary action solely by the continued uncertainty of the conditions prevailing in China. Neither the proposals of the Advisory Committee nor their financial stability have been thereby prejudiced in any way. The Advisory Committee is still in being, and its proposals can be carried into effect as soon as the necessary amending Act is passed.
In the meanwhile the Advisory Committee have been examining the situation and considering whether, in anticipation of the passing of the amending Act, there was any possibility of initiating some preliminary work or of undertaking some of the minor proposals which have been approved of by the Advisory Committee. It has, unfortunately, been found impracticable for various reasons to act on any of the suggestions put forward with this object in view. As already stated, however, the recommendations of the Advisory Committee are unaffected, and His Majesty's Government are only awaiting the moment when conditions in China will enable them to proceed with the action required for putting those recommendations into force.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

COAL AND SUGAR QUESTIONS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to instruct its representative at the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations to support the recommendation of the Economic Consultative Committee that the economic organisation of the League of Nations be authorised to inquire into the coal problem?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Council of the League of Nations decided at their meeting on the 9th of June to refer to the Economic Committee, for gradual study and action, the Consultative Committee's recommendations as to commerce, agriculture and industry, including those relating to the examination of the coal and sugar questions. In these circumstances no further instructions are required at present.

Mr. WELLOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is meant exactly by "gradual study and action"? Considering the parlous state of the coal industry and the necessity for international action, is it not possible to get the coal question expedited?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Difference of opinion made itself visible in the Council as to whether coal and sugar were proper subjects to be included. The Council finally decided that these quesions should be further examined by the Committee.
Personally, I thought that coal was rather an urgent matter, and I expressed that opinion.

Mr. WELLOCK: Was it not the case that the Consultative Committee decided unanimously that this matter should be taken up, including the representatives of the masters in this country?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Consultative Committee cannot dictate to the Council; neither can I.

ARBITRATION AND SECURITY COMMITTEE.

Mr. WELLOCK: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House as to the nature of the recommendations of the Arbitration Committee of the League of Nations, and as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards those recommendations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Arbitration and Security Committee is still in session at Geneva, and I am unable to forecast the nature of its decisions.

Mr. WELLOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which Convention the present Government are backing? There are five Conventions, I understand. One is the all-in arbitration. Are the Government backing that?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The position of His Majesty's Government in regard to arbitration has not changed. It has been expressed to the House. I do not understand that all these proposals are competitive.

HUNGARY (TREATY OF TRIANON).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared, in the interests of European peace, to recommend to the Council of the League of Nations that a commission be appointed to investigate the grievances of Hungary in respect of its minorities in the succession States, with a view to putting an end to the dangerous agitation which is now being made against the provisions of the Treaty of Trianon?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am not prepared to take the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. BUXTON: Does not the Foreign Secretary consider that the question is very urgent, so urgent that some action ought to be taken by the Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is a proper procedure if a minority have complaints to make, by which they can approach the Council, and so any State can also approach the Council, if it thinks the circumstances proper; but the suggestion for a Commission of Inquiry, such as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, would, I think, lead to greater difficulty and trouble than already exists.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be more proper that we should defer the consideration of this question until the House has the inestimable advantage of the presence of the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth)?

Mr. SPEAKER: That cannot possibly arise out of the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he and the whole of his party voted against a Motion of mine to reject the Treaty of Trianon, and does not that lay the responsibility on his party, of which he is one of the leaders, to take steps to try to remedy an admitted injustice?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am quite clear in my own mind that nobody serves the interests of peace by proposing the revision of Treaties so recently concluded.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

QUARANTINE TAX.

Colonel APPLIN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that during recent months the Egyptian authorities have levied what is described as a quarantine tax on non-Egyptians landing at or embarking from Egyptian ports; whether the tax has been imposed with the concurrence and assent of the other interested Powers; and whether remonstrances have been addressed to the Egyptian Government by the High Commissioner on behalf of His Majesty's Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The tax in question, which was first imposed in 1922, is levied, not by the Egyptian Government, but by an international
body, the Egyptian Maritime, Sanitary and Quarantine Board, in virtue of the Venice Sanitary Convention of 1892. In the circumstances, no representations to the Egyptian Government have been made, or are called for.

POLITICAL SITUATION.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make concerning the situation in Egypt?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have no statement to make on recent events in Egypt, in which His Majesty's Government had no part.

Mr. MALONE: Was His Majesty's Government consulted by King Fuad before the last Ministry was formed?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government carefully refrained, and Lord Lloyd carefully refrained, from tendering any advice, bearing in mind the statement of policy which is embodied in a despatch of mine, No. 2, Command Paper 3097, the relevant passage of which I read again and re-affirmed in answer to a question by the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition on the last Debate which took place in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA (BRITISH SEAMAN'S ARREST.)

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what charge, if, any, has been formulated against Mr. Brewer, of the mercantile marine, who was arrested five months ago and is now awaiting trial in Portuguese West Africa.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The charge was one of burglary.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OIL PURCHASES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what quantity of oil fuel, lubricating oil, and petrol, respectively, was purchased for the Royal Navy last year; and what proportion of these oils were purchased from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): It is not in the national interest that the consumption of fuel oil, etc., in His Majesty's Navy should be disclosed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can I have an answer to the last part of my Question: what proportion of these oils were purchased from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The same reasons apply. This information has never been published.

MATCHES.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that matches of foreign manufacture are being retailed in naval canteens; and whether he will issue instructions that in future matches of British manufacture only shall be issued from the canteens.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Matches of foreign manufacture, as well as British matches, are sold in naval canteens at the wish of the men. The matter is not one for Admiralty action.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: If it is the policy of the Government to encourage the sale of British goods, surely we should encourage the sale of British matches in naval canteens?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have any protests been received against the aspersion on British sea-men that they want to use foreign matches?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think the explanation is that foreign matches are cheaper.

WELFARE REQUESTS.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in view of the reduced number of welfare requests this year, he will advise the Admiralty issue of replies before the expiration of a year from the date of the requests?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Replies are always given as early as circumstances admit. It is expected that the replies to most of the 171 requests will be promulgated within the year.

BOILER CONSTRUCTION (PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD).

Sir B. FALLE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the continued discharge of competent boiler-makers and skilled labourers from the boiler-maker's shop at the dockyard, Portsmouth; and if he will reconsider the decision not to build boilers for new construction in the Royal yards, seeing that boilers have been successfully built at Portsmouth?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is no such general decision as that referred to in the second part: the existing policy is that the Royal yards are asked to tender for suitable boiler construction along with private firms.

Sir B. FALLE: Can the Financial Secretary say why these men are being put out of the yard if there is any possibility of their being employed on naval construction?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The principal dockyards were given an opportunity of tendering for the manufacture of these boilers for certain cruisers of the 1927 programme. Prices were not favourable, and it was not economically possible to place orders in the dockyards. The matter will be investigated again when new contracts are given out.

MATES (PROMOTION).

Sir B. FALLE: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the lieutenant-commanders promoted to commander on 30th June, 1928, were promoted from ex-mates; how many lieutenant-commanders there are now serving promoted from mates who were in the promotion zone; how many ex-mates have served on the active list as lieutenant-commanders since the inception of the scheme; and how many ex-mates have been promoted to the rank of commander on the active list?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): None of the Lieutenant-Commanders promoted to Commander on the 30th June, 1928, were officers promoted from mate. 18 Lieutenant-Commanders promoted from mate were in the promotion zone. Between the Senior Lieutenant-Commander and the
Junior Lieutenant-Commander promoted there were 145 Lieutenant-Commanders, of whom three were ex-mates; all these three were within one year of their retiring age, but in spite of this their claims were carefully considered with those of their contemporaries. 81 officers promoted from mate have served on the active list as Lieutenant-Commanders since the inception of the mate scheme. One ex-mate has been promoted to the rank of Commander on the active list.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "JERVIS BAY."

Commander WILLIAMS: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, in response to a call for assistance from steamship "Jervis Bay," a slow oiler and not the fast cruiser "Enterprise," which was at Colombo, was sent to help her; and whether any delay occurred in the despatch of the oiler?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: His Majesty's ship "Enterprise" was lying at Colombo with half her crew in the hills for the annual musketry course. In such circumstances it is usual for an overhaul of the engines to be undertaken and for the ship to be at four days' notice for sea. The oiler "Slavol" was the only vessel immediately available and she was at Trincomali, where she had to await the arrival of the Marine guard from Colombo before sailing. The first signal received by His Majesty's ship "Enterprise" from the "Jervis Bay" was at 9.30 a.m. Indian time on 20th June. This signal read:
Having trouble. Eight desperate stowaways. Is there any warship on track?
and giving her position. The reply from "Enterprise" was sent at 10.40 a.m. on the 20th June, as follows:
No warship in vicinity, report if situation serious.
The reply from the "Jervis Bay" received by "Enterprise" at 1.0 a.m. on the 21st June read as follows:
Situation serious. Ask removal earliest of eight men now under hatches, but they are dangerous, mutiny and incendiarism tried. Passengers alarmed. Constant guard maintained by volunteer passengers. Endeavour assist me.
On receipt of this signal the Marine guard were at once despatched to Trincomali and the "Slavol" put to sea as soon as they were embarked.

Commander WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that all the available help which was practicable at that time was sent?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir. I understand that is so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the cost has been to the British taxpayer in sending this assistance; and also whether the cost will be charged against the owners of this steamship, which made a very unnecessary call for help?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not accept all the statements of the right; hon. and gallant Member. Whether it was unnecessary or not is not for me to say. As to the cost, I will endeavour to ascertain the amount, and also inquire as to the other question of the right hon. and gallant Member. I cannot answer them now.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BOROUGH EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE (OVERTIME).

Mr. DAY: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any overtime has been worked during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, or is being worked now, at the Walworth Road, Borough, Employment Exchange; and, if so, will he give particulars?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The total overtime worked during the past year at the Borough Exchange averaged about 18½ hours per week. The average staff was 55 Rather more than a quarter of this overtime was worked in the recent period of pressure due to the annual exchange of unemployment books, to assist with which seven temporary clerks were added to the staff.

Mr. DAY: In view of the great unemployment in Walworth Road, cannot the right hon. Gentleman put on additional men instead of employing the present staff overtime?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. Additional men have been taken on whenever circumstances have warranted it, but the general average only means about three hours per day, and any distribution of work could not really afford employment for more staff.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED (MINERS).

Mr. LINDLEY: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that miners in the Rotherham and Parkgate and Rawmarsh areas who go down the mine expecting to work, but for reasons beyond their control are not allowed to work, are being refused unemployment benefit; and, seeing that such miners are unemployed through no fault of their own and in circumstances that justify the payment of unemployed benefit for the days in question, what steps he proposes to take to secure to them their rights under the Unemployment Insurance Acts?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Umpire, whose decision on claims to benefit is final, has held in a number of cases that a miner who descends the pit and proceeds to his working-place is not unemployed even though he does no work and receives no wages. In accordance with this principle, the Insurance; Officer disallowed the claims to which the hon. Member refers, and I understand that appeals to the Court of Referees are pending. I have no power to intervene.

Mr. LINDLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the serious nature of the injustice that is being done to these men? He is penalising men who are anxious to work, who are actually trying to get work, and who are unemployed through no fault of their own.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member will realise that I am not penalising them. It is simply that the law as it stands is such as I have told the hon. Member, and I have no power to interfere with it unless by introducing legislation. If the hon. Member wishes, I can communicate with the Secretary for Mines to see if he can bring the matter before the Mining Association and other bodies in order to find means for preventing a misunderstanding of this kind as far as possible.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in almost every mining area colliery companies have what is called the marking system; that is, men go to the colliery every day, and descend the pit in the hope of getting work. Some do, but other do not. Is is fair that those who go to the bottom
of the pit, but for whom no work is provided, should be deprived of their unemployment benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not a question whether I think so or not. As far as the law is concerned, I cannot help myself. It seems to me a case where it is really hard on the men concerned, and if there is any need for fresh legislation, I will be glad to consider the case.

Mr. MARDY JONES: The statement of the Minister of Labour is rather serious. Are we to understand that miners who present themselves for work and are informed by the management that there is no work for them, who go back to their homes without having drawn any wages at all, are not to be allowed to record these as idle days when applying for unemployment benefit under the Act?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will look, the law is not as regards any person simply presenting himself for work, but as regards miners who go underground. It is a question of the legal definition of the word "employment" or "unemployment" in such cases. It is not a question of whether or not it is a hard case, but of what the law is at the moment and whether steps can be taken to amend it.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a question of the Regulations that are being sent out rather than of the law itself? In view of that, is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to issue fresh Regulations which will obviate this difficulty?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will gladly go into any question of Regulations with any hon. Members opposite who wish it, but I can assure them that it not a question of Regulations, but of the legal interpretation of the law.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has said that he has no power in the matter. We cannot pursue it any further.

Mr. SHINWELL: On that point, I wish to ask a question.

Mr. LINDLEY: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. MARDY JONES: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that so many thousands of miners are involved in this issue, cannot we get a reply from the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is a downright disgrace; that is what it is.

BARROW-IN-FURNESS EXCHANGE (RECRUITING).

Mr. BROMLEY: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the recruiting activities of the military authorities at the Employment Exchange at Barrow-in-Furness, and that the desks and tables where unemployed men have to appear to draw their benefit are constantly strewn with recruiting literature; and if he will take steps to have the practice discontinued within the precincts of the Exchange?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am making inquiry and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. BROMLEY: When the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiries will he let me know whether the military authorities contribute to this Employment Exchange to enable them to do this recruiting?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will try to get the hon. Member any relevant information.

EXCHANGE FACILITIES, ROCHDALE.

Mr. KELLY: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour what provision is made to deal with the unemployed men and women registering at the Rochdale Employment Exchange, in view of the many cases of illness caused by the want of accommodation?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The men and women are dealt with in temporary premises at Summercastle School, Holroyd Street, and the juveniles in the permanent Exchange in Drake Street. No cases of illness have been reported to the Ministry due to want of accommodation. The new permanent premises in Station Road will be ready for occupation about the middle of August.

Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some further investigations, in view of the report which has come from myself and other people as to many of those who attend the Employment Exchange requiring medical attendance because of having to wait three and four hours?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me an indication of the way in which inquiries ought to be made. A general inquiry is not often very satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (WAGES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour to name the industries which have been safeguarded since the present Government took office in which the wages of the workpeople have been increased; and whether he is in a position to furnish the figures?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the packing and wrapping paper-making industry the minimum rates of wages of men in the lower-paid occupations have been raised by 1s. 10d. per week for shift workers and by 2s. 6d. a week for day workers; while those of women have been raised by 2s. 6d. a week. I have no information as to whether the wages of workpeople in other industries in which a safeguarding duty has been imposed from 1925 onwards have been increased.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that packing paper affords the only illustration of an industry in which the workpeople have got an increase?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, it is the only industry of which I have specific information.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How is it that the right hon. Gentleman can give the information for one industry in which the wages have been raised, and not for other industries?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is a question of classification, and as to whether the workers in one particular industry fall into a group.

Commander WILLIAMS: Arising out of the original answer, does it not show that there has been a definite increase of wages where there has been safeguarding, and is not that another certificate as to the value of safeguarding?

Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman can state that increase in one particular trade. Why cannot he give the information about other trades, seeing that when these trades made application to be brought within the Safeguarding of Industries Act they had to place before the Committee certain statements regarding the trade, and what they believed would be the possible results of safeguarding?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already answered that question.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman has not given a reply to that question.

Mr. SPEAKER: He may not have given a full reply to that question, but he gave a very full reply to the original question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR SERVICES.

EGYPT-KARACHI (SUBSIDY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what subsidy for Imperial Airways, Limited, was allowed for in last year's Estimates and this year's Estimates, respectively, for the purpose of operating an air service between Bagdad and Karachi; and what reductions have been made in these payments on account of the non-establishment and non-operation of this service pending agreement with the Persian Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first part of the question, the air service was planned in two sections, Egypt-Basrah and Basrah-Karachi, and the provision for subsidies for the latter section was £31,200 in last year's and £46,800 in the present year's Estimates, these sums being the aggregate of the subsidies for the maximum number of flights on the section at the rates specified in Clause 14 of the Agreement published in White Paper Cmd. 2758. As regards the second part, as a result of the Persian difficulty
it was agreed with Imperial Airways, Limited, that the fortnightly service on the Egypt-Basrah section should be augmented for the time being to a weekly one and that the extra flights so made should be treated as though they were made on the Basrah-Karachi section for the purpose of earning subsidy. There was consequently no reduction of subsidy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that this policy tends to put a premium on Imperial Airways not pushing the extension of the scheme, as they make more money by not flying than by operating the service?

Sir S. HOARE: No; that is not the case. Imperial Airways are most anxious to open the whole section. It is only the Persian Government that stands in the way, and over it Imperial Airways have no control.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that he is encouraging the company not to take active steps?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. The company and the British Government are taking every possible step to open the whole route.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Government are.

LONDON-INDIA.

Mr. MALONE: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made in the arrangements for the London-India air service; and when the White Paper may be expected?

Sir S. HOARE: I am not in a position to add anything to my former replies upon this subject. The White Paper, presentation of which has been delayed by the necessity for consulting the Government of India, will be laid at a very early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ACCIDENT, MALTA (LIEUT. JOHN NICHOLSON, R.N.).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that, notwithstanding repeated applications
to the Air Ministry by the father of Lieut. John Nicholson, Royal Navy, who was killed at Malta on 25th June while flying off His Majesty's ship "Courageous," no information can be obtained by him of the circumstances; that no communication was made to him on the recovery of the body nor of the funeral of the deceased officer, which took place at Malta on 27th June with naval honours, and consequently the relatives were unable to be represented at the funeral; and whether he will now give instructions that in similar instances in future full information may be conveyed to relatives without delay?

Sir S. HOARE: The fatality occurred on the 25th June, and on the same day was notified by telegram and letter, with an expression of profound sympathy on behalf of the Air Council and myself, to the officer's wife, whose name was recorded as that of his next-of-kin. When his father made telephonic inquiries he was informed that any further particulars received at the Air Ministry would at once be communicated to him, and this has since been done. It is not the practice to require units overseas to telegraph prior notification of the funeral, as in practically no case could the relatives attend. I deeply regret that Major Nicholson should feel that he had cause for complaint in regard to the notification of the death of his gallant son. but, inasmuch as the accident was, as I have stated, notified on the actual day of its occurrence to the next-of-kin, as recorded by the officer himself, and it is the standing practice to give all available information to the known relatives at the earliest possible moment, I do not think any further special instructions are called for.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the widow, to whom notice of the death was given on 25th June, up to last Sunday night had no information that the body of her husband had been recovered and was buried?

Sir S. HOARE: We gave the widow the fullest information we had as soon as we could. I will look into the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, and, if we can send her at once any further information, we certainly will do so.

SLOTTED-WING DEVICE.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the fatal accidents that are of constant occurrence in the Royal Air Force, he will say to how many machines the device known as the slotted wing has been fitted?

Sir S. HOARE: The number of machines that have been fitted with the automatic slot to date is 108, and contracts for the fitting of a further 478 machines are in hand. In addition, 40 sets of slot components have been despatched for fitting to aeroplanes overseas and 40 further sets are awaiting shipment. I must add, however, in view of the implication in my hon. Friend's question, that while the automatic slot is a most valuable and promising safety device, it is primarily designed to secure, more effective control of aircraft at low flying speeds, and a large proportion of accidents are due to other causes which it would not serve to obviates.

Captain GUNSTON: Have there been any accidents to machines fitted with the slotted device?

Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid there have been one or two accidents.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDINGS (ARCHITECTS).

Mr. HARRIS: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is the policy of his Department in the selection of architects for public buildings of first-class importance; how far their designing is now confined to officials in his Department; and whether he gives reasonable opportunity to eminent architects in private practice to submit designs for important public works so that the State should have the service of the best architects available?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): It is the policy of the First Commissioner of Works to utilise, as far as possible, the services of the architects in his Department for designing the public buildings for which he is responsible; but in the case of a building of outstanding importance, the desirability of giving eminent architects
in private practice reasonable opportunity to submit designs is always carefully considered.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not advisable for the nation to have the best available architects?

Sir V. HENDERSON: Yes. We have the advice of the best architects in the country when the erection of a building of outstanding importance arises, but I do not think, in the case of any buildings which the hon. Member has in mind, any serious results have happened in the past from not utilising the services of any particular architect. I cannot, of course, answer the question, because I do not know what he really has in his mind.

Mr. HARRIS: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by buildings of outstanding importance—what money value?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The buildings I have in mind are those like the new Embassy at Washington, the new Government buildings in Northern Ireland, and the new Government building that was put up about 10 years ago in Whitehall for the Ministry of Health. Those are the kind of buildings I mean.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING LICENCES.

Major CARVER: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of broadcasting licences which have now been issued; and whether, seeing that broadcasting licences now last for one year from the first day of the month in which they are issued, so as to facilitate the Post Office arrangements and for public convenience, he will consider whether the renewal of broadcasting licences could be effected automatically on the first day of each year as is the case in respect of other licences?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The number of wireless receiving licences in force is just over 2,500,000. There would be considerable congestion at post offices if this large number of licences were renewable on the 1st of January; and I do not consider that it would be in the interest either of the public or of the Post Office to alter the present arrangement under which the work of renewal is spread over the twelve months.

Major CARVER: Is the Noble Lord aware of the large number of portable sets that are now used, and is he satisfied that licences are being taken out for all of them?

Viscount WOLMER: That is a different matter. We take very stringent steps to see that all licences that ought to be taken out are taken out. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any specific information that licences are not being taken out, I shall be very grateful to hear from him.

Oral Answers to Questions — VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (RATING).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any representations from local authorities or charitable organisations with regard to the effect of the operation of the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 on hospitals and similar institutions; and whether he proposes to take any action in consequence?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has received communications on this subject from the British Hospitals Association and from the authorities of certain hospitals, but not from local authorities. I can only refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) on 2nd July.

Sir C. RAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Sussex County Council, which is very well known to him, have had their assessment raised from £100 to £1,600, and are the assessment committees of the different localities justified in making nominal assessments, as they have done hitherto? If not, shall we have any opportunity of discussing the matter at an early date, as it affects so many hospitals all over the country?

Sir K. WOOD: If assessment committees are not acting properly and within the law, there is a remedy by way of appeal.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (OVERCROWDING).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 40.
asked the Minister of Health what evidence he has as to the extent of overcrowding in slum
areas now as compared with the period of the 1921 Census; and if he has evidence to show that housing schemes are, in fact, relieving overcrowding amongst any section and in particular of the slum-dwelling section of the population?

Sir K. WOOD: As the large numbers of houses which have been built in recent years have exceeded the requirements of the increased population, it is obvious that they must have contributed very largely towards the relief of overcrowding, including overcrowding in the slums. I have, however, no later information as to the densities of persons per room than the statistics contained in the 1921 Census. These figures are not confined to slum areas, which, indeed, the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate, is a somewhat elastic term.

Mr. GROVES: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the menace to health which follows the overcrowding of the poorer portion of the people in the county borough of West Ham; and what steps he proposes to take to relieve the evil?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of the housing position in the district in question. The local authority have undertaken, with my right hon. Friend's approval, a scheme under the Housing Act of 1924 for the provision of 420 dwellings, of which number over one-half have been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider introducing legislation to amend Section 22 of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, with reference to the residential qualification of pensioners, so as to include pensioners who take up residence in any of His Majesty's Dominions?

Sir K. WOOD: I would remind the hon. Member that an Amendment to secure what is now proposed was negatived when the Bill was in Committee, and my right hon. Friend remains of the opinion that, for the reasons then given, and in the absence of reciprocal arrangements, it is not possible to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was only negatived because the Government saw to it that it was negatived?

Sir K. WOOD: That hardly does justice to the deliberations of the House.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that members of the Government are advising young men to emigrate, when two or three sons have gone and the father follows, ought he not to receive the pension he has paid for?

Mr. ROBINSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if legislation will be introduced during the present Parliament for the abolition of the income and/or means limit for old age pensions at 70 under the Old Age Pension Acts, 1908 to 1924?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Crooke) on 1st December last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF, WEST HAM.

Mr. GROVES: 44.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the appointed guardians of the West Ham Union have instituted a system of test work under which some men in receipt of out-door relief are employed in the West Ham Workhouse from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily either chopping wood, excavating, or turning old-fashioned corn grinders; that the mid-day meal consists of 8 ounces of bread and 4 ounces of cheese with a mug of cocoa, and although an hour is granted for the mid-day meal the men are not allowed under any circumstances to leave the workhouse during this period; and whether he will take immediate steps to prevent this infringement of the Factory and Workshop Acts?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has approved the arrangements made by the guardians. The Factory and Workshop Acts have no application to work of this kind and do not in any event, so far as he is aware, contain any provisions which are infringed by the arrangements made by the guardians.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the guardians definitely stated that these arrangements have been introduced to cut across the private arrangements of the men concerned? Does he think that this is a right way to treat men who have fought for their country, and is this what we call the new type of Conservative Christian charity?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member himself has visited the institution, and I understand that he expressed his full approval.

Mr. GROVES: I expressed my utter disgust.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLEARING OFFICE FOR ENEMY DEBTS.

Mr. KELLY: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the names of the firms of valuers who are employed by the Enemy Debts Department?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The property handled by the Departments for the Administration of German, Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian Property is of a very varied character and is situated in all parts of the United Kingdom. A complete list of the valuers employed by the Department is not available, and its compilation would entail a very great amount of work in searching case files, but I may say that the valuers generally employed by the Department in the London district are Mr. A. G. Bonsor, Messrs. Christie, Manson and Woods, Mr. Leopold Davis, Messrs. Debenham, Storr and Sons, Limited, Mr. H. J. Hewlitt, Messrs. Miller, Paxton and Fairminer, Messrs. Spink and Son, Messrs. Sotheby and Company and Messrs. Weatherall and Green.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

LEATHER.

Mr. MALONE: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the shortage of leather; and whether he will consider the appointment of an inquiry into the
reasons for the shortage and consequent increased prices now being charged for leather?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 15th May last.

Mr. MALONE: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that there is very grave apprehension among certain manufacturers in the boot trade that the big five in America are holding up supplies, and, in view of the effect on trade and employment in this country, does he not think his Department ought to inquire into the matter?

Mr. WILLIAMS: In my previous answer, I pointed out that the difficulty arose owing to the fact that there is a decline in the slaughtering of animals in many countries, and the only suggestion I can make is that people should eat more meat.

FOOTBALL BLADDERS (EXPORT TO INDIA).

Sir C. RAWSON: 51.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that a well-known firm of rubber manufacturers in this country who have been exporting football bladders marked Tested, London, to India for the past 25 years are now faced with the competition of German football bladders shipped direct from Germany to Calcutta,

The value of pig meat imported into the United Kingdom during the year ended 1st May, 1928, was—


Bacon.
Hams.
Pork.
Total Pig meat.


Fresh.
Frozen.
Salted.
Tinned and Canned (including Tongues).


£
£
£
£
£
£
£


38,733,814
4,571,254
1,472,860
853,657
83,977
1,119,254
46,834,816

With regard to the second part of the question, the development of small forest holdings is being considered by the Government in connection with the Inquiry of the Industrial Transference Board. The Trade Facilities Act has now lapsed, but public funds are available

and marked by the importers as Tested, London; and what steps the Indian Government is taking to prevent the sale in India of imported foreign goods as goods of British origin?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): My Noble Friend has no information as regards the first part of the question but will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

PIG BREEDING AND BACON CURING (CREDITS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the value of the pig-meat, pork and bacon, imported into this country in the 12 months ended 31st May, 1928; and if he will, in conjunction with the afforestation schemes of the Forestry Commission, consider the establishment of small holdings for pig breeding and recommend the provision of credits, under the Trade Facilities Act or otherwise, for the setting up of bacon-curing factories, so that employment in a new industry may be found for men surplus to the mining industry?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the reply is necessarily long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

for the provision of loans to societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts for the marketing of agricultural products, including bacon-curing factories, in such cases and on such terms and conditions as I may consider desirable on the advice of the
Advisory Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett).

GRADED MILK.

Mr. BUXTON: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in the interests of milk producers and consumers, he will consider the proposal recommended in the Ministry's Report on the fluid milk market to simplify the terminology applied to the three kinds of graded milk?

Sir K. WOOD: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brig.-General Brown) on 8th March last.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any, and, if so, what, public bodies in Scotland have made representations to him recommending the transfer of the functions of the parish councils and a large proportion of the functions of burghs with a population under 20,000 to the county councils?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): No such representation has been made to me by any public body in Scotland, but I have kept in view recommendations by the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, by Committees and other advisory bodies.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to understand that these proposals for the destruction of local government in Scotland are being made without representations to the Government from any single public body in Scotland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member must understand that they are being made following the recommendation of a special body appointed to inquire into the subject.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not a fact that no single public body in Scotland has asked for it?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, during the
Recess, to consult the public authorities in Scotland with regard to this question?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes. I have already announced publicly that I will do so.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that important public bodies in Scotland have already strongly protested against these proposals?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Johnston.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already called the next question.

LAND SEIZURE (PROSECUTIONS, LOCHMADDY).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 57.
asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Court of Session has ordered the liberation of two men from Harris, who had been imprisoned pending their appeal against a verdict given against them at Lochmaddy Sheriff Court for breach of interdict; whether he can say how long these men were illegally imprisoned; and whether it is proposed to offer them any compensation for such illegal imprisonment?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean).

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that no answer given yesterday, either to the original question or to the supplementary questions, answered the specific point put in this question as to how long these men were illegally imprisoned?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not aware that they have been illegally imprisoned at all.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman, without evasion, say how long these men were kept in prison before the Court of Session ordered their release?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No; I have not that information, but if the hon. Member puts down a question, I will find it out.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance. I have specifically put that question. It was put yesterday in the House and debated, and it is specifically put on the Paper to-day.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot give more information than he has got. If he has not any further information, he cannot give it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: With deference, Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asked a specific question as to how long these men were kept in prison, and he-says that he has not the information.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then he cannot give it.

The LORD ADVOCATE: On the contrary, I said I was not aware that they had been illegally imprisoned at all.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, as the principal Law Officer of the Crown in Scotland, he really states to this House that he is not in possession of the facts of a case that has been raised by questions in this House during the past fortnight? Has he not interested himself sufficiently in this case to make inquiries? I am pressing for an answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the question on the Paper. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given an answer and said that he has no further information to give.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I put this question——

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask——

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have this continuation of supplementary questions.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. We have been putting questions during the past fortnight relating to the case of the imprisonment of these two men. The Lord Advocate is the principal Law Officer of the Crown in Scotland, and we have asked him question after question relating to the legality of this imprisonment, and he comes here day after day and tells us that he is not bothering himself to find out. Is this to be continued?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given his reply, and, whether it satisfies the hon. Member or not, is another matter. He has already given a reply, and he can only give the information which he has got.

Mr. MACLEAN: I have always understood that the Speaker of this House protected the rights of private Members. There is a period during the time of this House that is set apart for questions to be addressed to the Government and answered by Members of the Government. As I have stated, we have been asking questions for two weeks upon this subject, and I am asking for your guidance now as to what steps we can take, as Members of this House, to insist upon the principal Law Officer of the Crown in Scotland giving us a reply to the questions which we have been putting during that period.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite true that there is a time set apart—practically an hour—for the asking of questions, but that period must not be abused. If there are too many supplementary questions, obviously it is being abused, because other hon. Members will not have an equal opportunity to have their questions answered.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not being abused by——

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS AND AMMUNITION (SURRENDER AND CONFISCATION).

Mr. DAY: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any information that will show what was the intended destination of the 451 pistols and revolvers, and the 45,000 rounds of ammunition, that were surrendered to, or confiscated by, the Metropolitan police during the six months ended 30th April, 1928; and can he give particulars.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Most of these arms and cartridges were surrendered by individuals who did not desire further possession or were confiscated on it appearing that their possessors had no authority to possess them. One batch of not more
than 50 arms with two or three packages of ammunition was believed to be intended for Ireland. These were confiscated by Order of a Court.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman supply figures for the rest of the country if I put down a question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will try.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE (CHIEF COMMISSIONER).

Mr. LANSBURY: 59.
asked the Home Secretary the salary proposed to be paid to Lord Byng during his tenure of office as Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police; whether any definite period has been agreed to as his tenure of office; and will his Lordship be entitled to a pension or other emolument on retirement from the position?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Lord Byng, as Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, will be entitled to the salary of the post, as provided in the Estimates, namely, £3,000 per annum. No definite period has been fixed, but as the law stands a Commissioner of Police cannot retain office after he reaches the age of 70. As regards pension, I must refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, under which Lord Byng can only obtain any pension if specially sanctioned by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Treasury.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for what period Lord Byng will serve?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No period. As I have explained, under the provisions of the law as it stands, Lord Byng must retire at 70. No period is fixed, but he can retire before that age if he thinks fit.

Mr. LANSBURY: 62.
asked the Home Secretary what special conditions prevail at the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police which in his judgment made it necessary for him to ask Lord Byng to accept the position of Chief Commissioner without any reference to his Lordship's age and without any agreement as to length of service and remuneration, and without regard to the
fact that his Lordship is already five years older than the usual age at which commissioners are expected to retire?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: When a post of the importance of that of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis becomes vacant, it is usual and proper for the Minister responsible to survey the whole available field of choice with a view to finding the man who in his judgment is best suited by experience and personal qualities to undertake it. That is exactly what I have done in this instance, and in my judgment Lord Byng possesses qualifications which outweigh the disadvantages, such as they are, of advancing years. After all, he is younger than many gentlemen known to all of us who still apply themselves with unabated vigour to their self-appointed tasks. No special agreement as to length of service or remuneration was necessary in view of the facts which I have brought to the notice of the hon. Member in reply to his earlier question. The last part of the question does not arise for, as the hon. Member will see when he has the particulars for which he is asking with regard to previous occupants of the post, it cannot be said that there is any usual age at whch commissioners are expected to retire.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only two days ago he told the House that there were some exceptional conditions which necessitated the appointment of such a gentleman, and may I ask him the question which I asked him then, as to why it is that there is no person in the service of the Metropolitan Police who can be promoted to this position, without bringing in a gentleman of this age? May I also say to the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—that persons who do voluntary work do not want sneers from him or anyone else. [Interruption.] When you have done as much as I have—[Interruption.] He is beneath contempt, that is what I say. [Interruption.]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Gentleman and I have worked together for many years. I am not complaining——

Mr. LANSBURY: Why do you sneer at me?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Really, I did not sneer. The hon. Gentleman is far too sensitive.

Mr. LANSBURY: You talked about self-appointed tasks.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's lack of a sense of humour. With regard to the serious question which he asked me, he is entitled to an answer. The position in the Metropolitan Police is that there are many high officers, all carrying out their duties satisfactorily, but it may well be, and it is my view, having been responsible for three and a half years and having worked with these officers, that neither of them was the right man to appoint to the control of a great force of 20,000 men, involving as it does the safety and happiness of an enormous city of some 8,000,000 people. I felt it essential that I should get a man of great qualifications, great ability, great character——

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: A reflection on the police.

Mr. MONTAGUE: What is behind all this?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: —and while I make no reflection of any kind on the officers of the force, who are carrying out their duties admirably, I felt, and still feel, that Lord Byng is better adapted for carrying out the duties than any one of these officers.

Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the latest Report issued by Sir William Horwood in reference to the condition of the police force in the metropolitan area? [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are trying to debate the question. It is really not a time for Debate.

Mr. LANSBURY: 63.
asked the Home Secretary how many of the last four gentlemen who held the post of Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis possessed previous police experience; what was their age at the time of appointment; at what age did they retire; what salary attached to the office and what pension was paid on retirement; the total number of years each of these gentlemen served; whether any of them at the time of appointment was
in receipt of a pension from any other public Department; and the amount of such pension, if any?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the answer is in a tabular form, I will publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

HON. MEMBERS: Read it out.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is impossible to read it out, but I may give what the hon. Gentleman wants, which is the age of retirement of previous Commissioners. They are 52, 66, 68 and 58. There are many other figures including pensions, age, and so on.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that on the occasion of every appointment to the Chief Commissionership, it has always been suggested that it was with a view to clearing up a mess, will the right hon. Gentleman say what was the nature of the stern call to duty that prompted the invitation to Lord Byng to accept the post, and the reflection that is conveyed by his statement without explanation on the state of affairs that existed in the Metropolitan Police.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I never, in any statement of mine, said that there was any question of clearing up a mess. I stated that I asked Lord Byng, who naturally might feel that with his record he need not be called upon to undertake any more public service, to take the important duty, because I could conceive that he had exactly those qualities which are required at the present time for the Commissionership of the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. HAYES: What are the conditions which demand such special qualifications which are not possessed by experienced and trained police officers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member, I understand, is asking for a Debate on this subject next week. He can put his points then, and I shall be prepared to meet them in Debate, but it really is impossible to do more than I have done at the present time in answering the questions that have been put to me. I shall be prepared to make a full statement in regard to all matters relating to the appointment of this gentleman, and the steps which I took when I knew that the vacancy would occur.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: The whole House will see that this is certainly not a time to

—
Mr. James Monro, C.B.
Col. Sir Edward R. C. Bradford, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., K.C.S.I.
Sir Edward R. Henry, G.C.V.O., K.C.B.
Gen Rt. Hon. Sir C. F. Nevil Macready, G.C.M.G., K.C.B.


Previous police experience.
Yes
No
Yes
No


Age on appointment
50
53
52
56


Age on retirement
52
66
68
58


Salary as Commissioner.
£1,500 (plus £600 allowances).
£1,500 (plus £600 allowances) raised during service to £2,500 (no allowances).
£2,000, raised after 5 years to £2,500.
£2,250 (in addition to £1,000 Army half pay).


Pension for service in Metropolitan Police.
Nil
£828 13s. 4d.
£850
Nil


Length of service as Commissioner.
19 months
12¾ years
15½ years
19 months


Nature and amount of any pension from public funds drawn during service as Commissioner.
Indian Civil Service pension, £1,000.
Indian Army pension £1,124 17s. 5d. (after 1 year: previously £365 unemployed pay).
Indian Civil Service pension, £1,000.
Nil

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC LOTTERIES.

Sir C. RAWSON: 61.
asked the Home Secretary why a voluntarily organised draw on behalf of the funds of a Hove hospital was stopped by the Home Office whilst draws conducted on identical lines for other hospitals in Brighton and Hove have not been interfered with; and can an authoritative statement be made for the guidance of those who organise those and similar functions on behalf of charities?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The enforcement of the law relating to illegal lotteries is a matter for the local police and not for the Home Office. My attention was drawn to a public lottery at Hove in apparent contravention of the law, and I brought it to the notice of the local police. Had my attention been drawn to the other lotteries referred to, it would have been my duty to bring them also to the notice of the police. As I stated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Dulwich Division of Camberwell (Sir F. Hall) on the 14th instant, public lotteries are definitely illegal, and the law does not discriminate between those promoted in aid of charity and other

debate this question. An early opportunity will be available.

Following is the table:

public lotteries. I have no authority to decide what is or is not a public lottery, but it is always open to the promoters of charities to consult the local police on the question whether any proposed lottery appears to contravene the law.

Sir C. RAWSON: As this particular action will deprive the hospitals in the constituency of Brighton and Hove of some £15,000 a year, will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Government to introduce legislation to remove some of the anomalies and stupidities of the existing law in regard to gaming?

Mr. J. JONES: Will the Home Secretake into consideration the advisability of changing the name of the Metropolitan Police Force to the "Byng Boys Association?"

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Sir C. Rawson), I have already issued two Memoranda on the subject of gaming. The law as regards lotteries, however, is definite and does not permit of any action by my Department.

Sir C. RAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest an alteration of the law?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Cyril Cobb to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Registration (Births, Deaths, and Marriages) Bill); and Sir Robert Sanders of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords]).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS REPORTED.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill and London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill (consolidated into "London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill"),

Great Western Railway (Road Transport) Bill,

London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill and London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill (consolidated into "London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill"),

Southern Railway (Road Transport) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments, from the Joint Committee on Railway (Road Transport) Bills; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).

Special Report from the Joint Committee brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) BILL.

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]

Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 2nd July.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Definition of Industrial Hereditaments.)

Amendment proposed [2nd July]: In page 3, line 10, after the word "or," to insert the words "for the purposes of trade or commerce or:"—[Miss Lawrence.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. KELLY: When we had to close our discussion on Monday night, we were dealing with this Amendment and discussing what was intended by the Government with regard to Clause 3, Sub-section (1). We were told by previous speakers that this Measure was intended to ease the burdens upon industry in order to cheapen production. I have yet to discover where we are going to find that opportunity of cheapening production. I could have understood the suggestion about cheapening production, if many of the items which had to be dealt with by industry were dealt with in this Measure; if, for example, industry were relieved of the enormous burden that is imposed upon it by the payments for insurance. I am not, however, allowed to develop that point on this Clause, and will take up one or two of the productive industries which are referred to in the Measure.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some idea of what he means by productive industry. With the exclusions which we find in Clause 3 it is difficult to understand his use of the words "productive industries." At what stage in the process between the raw material going to the place and the product being sold to the consumer does be intend to draw the line, and say that that portion of the place is no longer to be regarded as part of the productive industry which is to be de-rated? Take an engineering establishment as an
example. Does he intend that every part of the establishment which is essential to the production of the finished article is to be de-rated? The right hon. Gentleman has had a close connection with the metal trades of Birmingham. Does he intend that the drawing office, and the offices, which are often situated in the centre of the buildings are to be outside his scheme of de-rating? He is excluding from the de-rating schemes places used for storage, and I would ask him whether, in those establishments which have their storage place in the centre of the manufactory, that part of the establishment is to be excluded from the benefit of derating?

The CHAIRMAN: I think two main questions are involved in this and the next Amendment. This Amendment deals with non-industrial hereditaments in which there is no element of industry at all. The next Amendment raises the question of those hereditaments where there is some industrial element, though may be it is overshadowed by the other uses to which the premises are put, such as their use for storage or as a dwelling. I think it will be necessary to keep this Debate to the question of whether non-industrial hereditaments which have no composite element should come within the scope of this de-rating scheme, and that the question of composite hereditaments should be dealt with on the next Amendment.

Mr. KELLY: I recognise that, but I was endeavouring to find out why this difference is being made by the Minister between places which you term non-industrial hereditaments because they happen to be away from the factories and those which are on the same piece of land as the factories. I submit that if for the convenience of the sale of the products, and for the convenience of delivering them from those who manufacture them to the buyers, those establishments are not attached to the factory, are not adjoining, but are at different places, still they ought to be brought under this scheme for the purpose of de-rating. The difference between trade and commerce, if there be a difference, is one which I think the right hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to explain. At what point does he draw the line between the productive side of
industry and the commercial side of it? That concerns particularly these words, "for the purposes of trade or commerce or." I submit that it will not be fair if the right hon. Gentleman is going to make a difference between a warehouse that is away from the factory and a warehouse which is on the same ground as the factory. I realise the limitations which are placed on one in dealing with this particular question, or I would have liked to raise the question of storage and of public undertakings, which were dealt with during an earlier stage of this discussion on this Amendment, no exception being taken to that when it was being discussed on Monday night. I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he is going to differentiate between a public electricity supply undertaking and a manufactory which is generating electricity for itself and at the same time is supplying it outside its own buildings. As an example of the latter case I may mention the Swindon railway shops, and a battery company in Bakewell, Derbyshire.

The CHAIRMAN: There is no doubt that public undertakings do not come within the scope of this Amendment. The question of whether in a commercial undertaking the warehouse, offices and so on, come under the composite cases, is one to which we shall come presently.

Mr. KELLY: Does this mean that if the offices are attached to the works they come under the de-rating scheme, but if they are away from the establishment, in some other part of the town, or in some other town, then they will not be included? As we proceed with this discussion it becomes clear that the whole scheme has not been too well thought out, and that the exclusion of the commercial side of businesses from this de-rating scheme will not help in its administration or give that assistance to industry which has been spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. PALING: I shall be glad if either of the right hon. Gentlemen in his reply could deal with two cases which are of interest to constituents in my Division. I have in mind two collieries. One has what we call a land sale agency, which is practically on the property where the pit
is situated. It is adjacent to the sidings. I imagine that would be included with the business of the colliery. There is another case where the sale agency is entirely divorced from the pit two miles away, and is, I believe, actually under another local authority, and this sale agency sells coal in small quantities. What would be the position in a case like that?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: On a point of Order. May I call your attention to a ruling on 2nd July by the Deputy-Chairman? The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) raised this point of Order:
May I ask whether you will be able to accept any Amendments dealing with paragraphs (a) to (f)?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1928; col. 1106, Vol. 219.]
and the Deputy-Chairman replied that the discussion could take place on the Amendment we are now discussing.

The CHAIRMAN: No, on the next Amendment, to leave out the words "subject as hereinafter provided." That will, not by my selection, but of necessity, open up the question of the provisos. Those provisos are found lower down in the Clause. Therefore, the question of what I call the composite hereditaments, which are to some extent industrial, arises upon that Amendment. The present Amendment deals only with those hereditaments which are not industrial at all.

Mr. GILLETT: The question I want to bring before the Committee is that of the enlargement of the hereditaments which would come under this Clause if the proposed Amendment were carried. It seems to me that this Amendment brings out the fundamental objection that underlies the scheme which the Government are proposing. I cannot help thinking that it challenges certain very serious principles of taxation. Once you make a difference between various kinds of industries in the way the Government are suggesting, you really have to satisfy yourself that you are going to meet certain principles which are a part of the whole system of taxation. If we look into our general principles of taxation and consider where exemption has been granted, I think we shall find that it has been where it has
been proved that there has been some special need. I might take as an illustration of what I mean the case of Income Tax, where you give exemption to a man who has family obligations as against a man who is single, and where you also find that a certain exemption is allowed for a man who is earning his living as compared with a man who is living entirely upon his interest. In the rating system, so far, the principle of exemption has been granted to agriculture because it has been recognised by this House at certain stages that agriculture needed special help. What I understand is the principle which the Government are proposing is practically an enlargement of the Agricultural Rating Act to certain other industries. Their proposal is limited to productive industries, and the Amendment we are supporting, if carried, would enlarge the whole idea of the Government, so that not only would the productive industries be included in this exemption, but also a large number of other industries.
I cannot help thinking that the proposal of the Government suffers somewhat from the same kind of difficulties that beset any Government which tries to back up and to give some special favour, either by lightening taxation, or by the gift of a subsidy or by some protective duty to an industry here and an industry there. We see in all Protectionist countries, as we have seen in the case of the safeguarding of industries in this country, that as soon as one industry has been specially favoured, a large number of other industries also want to be favoured. In the Clause we are now considering the Government propose to give special relaxation with regard to rates to a certain number of industries which they are trying to define as productive industries. I venture to say they will come face to face with the same difficulties that arise in the case of protected industries. Immediately you give assistance to one industry, another industry thinks it is entitled to the same assistance. For instance, the man who sells buttons does not see why he should not have the same assistance given to him as to the man who is making buttons, and the man who sells bread does not see why he should not have the same help given to him as to the man who makes the bread.
I understand that on the next Amendment a number of cases of all kinds and descriptions which are on the boundary line of clearly-defined cases will come under discussion. I am, however, confining my reference at the moment entirely to those industries which are inside the favoured circle of the Government and those industries which stand obviously, at the present time, outside it, and I am trying to point out the difficulties that the Government will find even in these cases. I think when you take the smaller industries it will be found that it is far more difficult to give any sense of satisfaction to the industrial world such as will be given, perhaps, in the case of the larger industries. We have had instances given, and I will take the one best known, namely, the advantage that, this Measure will give to the brewing industry. We were told in the Debate yesterday on the Finance Bill that 1d. on beer would mean a cost of £25,000,000 to the brewing industry. It is quite obvious, therefore, that if the Government are going to grant something like £400,000 in relief of rates to the brewing industry, it is quite impossible for the brewing industry to pass that on to the consumer. It must go to benefit the profits of the concern.

The CHAIRMAN: We had this matter very thoroughly debated. We are now on the question of commercial hereditaments.

Mr. GILLETT: I was giving this as an illustration of the industries in the favoured circle, and I was trying to point out that, obviously, in this particular industry there was going to be a distinct gift to the brewing firms which they could not possibly pass on to the consumer. I was arguing from that, that it shows the weakness of the whole scheme in trying to limit the advantage which the Government are proposing to give to certain definite industries. That was the line I was trying to bring before the Committee. The weakness of the Government scheme seems to be that they are wasting a great deal of money on firms that do not need help, and that it would be infinitely better if they would enlarge the scope of their Measure so as to bring in other firms which really require it.
There is one other point that I would like to make. It is a little difficult to understand how far the scheme is going to be a help to a number of those districts most requiring help. In some cases which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to help, it seems to me that the reduction in the assessment would limit the advantage, and I would urge on these grounds that this is one of the objections to the limitation proposed by this Clause. In the case of many of the industries, if they had been assessed a number of years ago, the relief would be much larger than at the present time. For that reason, I cannot but think that the differentiation which the Government propose is one that is bound to lead to very great difficulty, and when we come to consider the more difficult cases raised by the next Amendment, we shall find that the clear-cut cases which we are considering now, difficult as they are, will be as nothing compared with the smaller and more complicated cases to be dealt with then. My reason for supporting this enlargement of the whole scheme is that I think the proposal at the present time is exceedingly wasteful in many ways, and that the money could be better spent on some of the industries not now included in the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. ELLIS: There is one question I would like to ask the Minister in connection with a point already raised, and that is the relationship of certain extensions, as in the case of railways attached to mines or quarries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] They are not in any way intimately connected with the quarries, though they serve them sometimes a distance of seven or eight miles.

The CHAIRMAN: That question will arise on Clause 5.

Mr. ELLIS: I will raise it later.

Mr. MALONE: I want to put only one point. This Amendment widens the scope of the Clause by adding the words "for the purposes of trade or commerce," and I think, therefore, I shall be in order in referring to the application of this Bill to boot factories which are not entirely concerned with the manufacture of boots, but are concerned with trade and commerce as well. I
do not know whether or not the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have paid special attention to the boot and shoe industry, but if they require any assistance or advice, I shall be quite prepared to help them and give them any knowledge I have got. Much of the multiple shop business carried on by the great firms goes right through the operation from the factory, through the distributive business to the retail shops. I know that the retail shops are quite out of the question, but these factories are concerned with making boots and distributing them. They have very large factories. I have one factory in mind which turns out, perhaps, 24,000 pairs of boots a week, and it may be sometimes up to 160,000. They do not make all those boots themselves. When they cannot cope with the demand, or have to deal with certain types of boots, they have to go to certain other factories where they buy boots, which they store in their own factories. This means that during some weeks these factories may be packed with goods and another week they are only half full. On some weeks they may be making more than half their output and will be primarily a factory, and on other occasions they may be going to other districts buying boots, and in that case they are primarily distributive wholesale. How are all these factories going to be assessed? Will it be on the weeks they are primarily factories or on the weeks when they are primarily distributive wholesale businesses. I hope the Minister will be able to——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to be discussing matters which come under the provisos, such as the offices of merchant bankers, or anything of that kind, including warehouses and subjects of that kind, which are not in order on this Amendment.

Mr. MALONE: I have covered the ground which I intended, and, whether the Minister replies now or at a later stage, I hope he will reply to these points. I know that this is not the Measure of the Minister of Health and is really the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary are far too intelligent to have brought in a Bill of this sort.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I heard the discussion on this Amendment
which took place on Monday night, and I have been waiting to hear a reply from the Minister of Health, particularly to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) about coalmines. I noticed the interest which the Parliamentary Secretary took in that speech. The question which was raised by my hon. Friend not only affects the coalfields, but the coal shipping ports. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) also intervened on that occasion and made a very interesting speech, and I think we ought to have some answer to the important points which were raised in the last Debate. This Amendment follows immediately after the words "mine or" in Sub-section (1), and I think it covers the points which I will refer to very briefly. In the Coal Mines Act of 1911, Section 22, mines have a very narrow definition, as follows:
'Mine' includes every shaft in the course of being sunk, and every level and inclined plane in the course of being driven.
It is an underground working, and it is not in any way——

The CHAIRMAN: The question of mines is specifically provided for in another part of the Clause, and it is not in order on this Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) proposes to insert the words "for the purposes of trade or commerce or." I think those words cover the case of the coal trade. I understand that the whole of the mine itself will receive relief. It may be the intention of the Government to relieve the factories and workshops only, but the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Ham North would cover my point. The question I am interested in is not so much the by-product plants as the plants in use at the ports. The Amendment would include coal-exporting plant and the plant used for loading coal in the ships. I would like to know if such plant would rank as part of a mine and as a productive hereditament, or would it be a transport hereditament——

The CHAIRMAN: I think that is a matter which ought to be dealt with
when we reach Clause 5, which defines all these hereditaments.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was only referring to wharves as an example, and I think the words of this Amendment would cover that, because it would be a hereditament used for the purposes of trade or commerce. The coal export trade which has been suffering under terrible difficulties is now showing some signs of recovery. I hope the Minister of Health will reply to the speeches to which I have alluded, and particularly to the point raised about the coalfields. I speak with some knowledge of the difficulties of the coal-exporting ports, and I should like an explanation upon that point. Some reply is called for to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields and the hon. Lady who moved this Amendment in a speech which impressed the whole Committee, and which was listened to with great attention on both sides of the House.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I think the lecture to which we have just listened from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) is entirely gratuitous. We have not replied to the discussion before, because we desired to hear all that could be said upon this Amendment, and this has led us not to interrupt the discussion prematurely until we felt that we were in possession of all the arguments. There has never been any intention on our part to allow the discussion to go without a reply, but we must be allowed to choose our own time, and that time must depend upon the course of the discussion and the arguments used. The observations which have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, which were not out of order, were really an anticipation of the speeches to be made on various Amendments which we have not yet reached, and therefore I do not think they call for any reply at this stage except in so far as my general reply on the main question may cover some of the points to which my hon. and gallant Friend desires to draw attention. What is the substance of this Amendment? As the Bill is drawn, Clause 3 defines an industrial hereditament as one
occupied and used as a mine….or as a factory or workshop.
There are certain provisos which limit that definition, broadly speaking, to industrial hereditaments, such as mines, factories and workshops. The Amendment proposes to introduce an entirely different class of hereditament, namely, one which is non-productive, which is not industrial, and which is commercial. Such a proposal might mean distribution. It might be concerned with merchanting or with banking. If this Amendment were accepted, it might lead to the possibility of relief being extended to all the new classes of premises which do not really enter into the Government scheme at all.
There are two grounds on which arguments have been based in justification of the Amendment. First of all, there is the general argument that if you are going to relieve productive industry you should not stop there, but you should relieve everything that is concerned with industry. That argument is a perfectly logical one, but at the same time it is one with which the Government cannot agree. Why do we not agree with that argument? I am afraid on this point that I shall have to repeat an observation which I have made before, and remind the Committee that every time you enlarge the field of rating relief you increase the liability of the Exchequer, and we cannot go on indefinitely relieving one section of the community after another without imposing fresh burdens upon the taxpayers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That argument is admitted, and it is recognised that either fresh taxation will have to be imposed in order to carry into effect this further extension of relief, or else the amount of relief which is already contemplated and which it is intended should be concentrated on productive industry must be diminished in order that it may be spread over a wider field.
Taking into account the fact that the fundamental objects of our proposals are the restoration of prosperity to depressed trades, the improvement of the prosperity of those trades which are not depressed, and the absorption of the unemployed, we believe that the money which we have at our disposal should be concentrated upon productive and not upon distributive industries. What is it that makes for the prosperity or otherwise of the distributive trades, or indeed of all the commercial
trades which are not in themselves productive? Are they not all dependent for their success upon the prosperity of production? That is the sole source of the prosperity of all industry, and, if by assisting productive industry we increase its production and prosperity, and if by doing that we achieve the object which we have in view, we shall necessarily and automatically similarly increase the prosperity of all the other trades concerned. Therefore, I say that, in the considered view of the Government, it would be a mistake so to weaken and dilute the power of the instrument which we have in our hands as to spread it over this wider field, and that we can much more certainly and effectively achieve the purpose of helping all sections of the community by directing it to the one point where it will be most effective.
So much for the general argument that we ought to extend this relief to commerce and trade generally, and ought not to confine it to production. I think there is a second argument, and, as I understood it, this was really the argument upon which was founded the case of the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), who moved this Amendment. It is that you cannot really distinguish between production and distribution, that the line between them is so fine that inevitably you are conducted from the one to the other, and that, if you attempt to draw any distinction, artificial or otherwise, you inevitably land yourself into anomalies and difficulties which make the whole scheme unworkable. That I understand to be the general argument of the hon. Member for East Ham North. The hon. Member does not approve of this scheme. She makes it her business to find out all the difficulties that can possibly be conceived in carrying out a scheme of this kind, to emphasise them, to stress them, to exaggerate them, and to try to argue that the scheme is impracticable. I think that time will show whether she is justified or not. For myself, I have no doubt whatever that we shall be justified in our contention that, while there are undoubtedly difficulties, there are no difficulties which are insuperable. I do not deny that there may be anomalies and inconsistencies, but we shall never get rid of anomalies and inconsistencies in this world, and, if they are only looked for with a hundredth
part of the persistence and ingenuity of the hon. Member for East Ham North, they will be found always to be there.
The structure of the Bill, which the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) found so difficult to understand, is not, I think, really beyond his powers of comprehension if he applies himself earnestly to its consideration. We found ourselves upon the distinction between mines, factories and workshops on the one hand, and other kinds of hereditaments on the other. There, at any rate, you have something which is familiar in practice, and of which definitions have been on the Statute Book for many years and have served as the basis of the practice of the Home Office, without, as far as I know, giving rise to any difficulty. Then we are told that these definitions are limited by the proviso. I do not know that I should be in order, on this particular Amendment, in pursuing this subject very far, and I think that perhaps there may be an opportunity at a later stage of going into these questions; but, broadly speaking, we may say this, that you have on the one hand hereditaments which are productive admittedly, which are the seat of productive industry admittedly, while on the other hand you have hereditaments which may contain only some small element of production, and the question is where you are to draw the line.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now developing a matter which really comes under the next Amendment. The question here is whether purely non-industrial hereditaments, such as commercial hereditaments, should be included.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a little difficult to meet the argument which has been adduced, that it is impossible to draw a line between production and distribution, unless one is able to discuss the whole matter, and that is my difficulty. I do not, however, want to transgress your ruling or to put temptations in the way of any new speakers who may follow me.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I might take the sense of the Committee on the matter. If the Committee, in view of the admitted difficulty, would prefer to continue this as a general discussion,
embracing the proviso, I should have no objection, but, unless I have that assurance, I am bound to rule strictly on the matter. If it be the general desire of the Committee that this discussion should be drawn out so as to include the proviso, I am quite willing to allow it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Speaking for myself, I was tempted to try to get some enlightenment on one narrow specific point with which I think you have allowed the Minister of Health to deal, on the strength of what was said on Monday. The particular point that I raised with regard to coal-loading apparatus could not be raised anywhere else on the Clause, so far as I can see, and the Government, having put on a Guillotine, must not complain if we take what opportunities we can of raising specific constituency points. This is only the second time that I have opened my mouth on this Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. I would venture to suggest for the consideration of the Committee that it would not be quite fair now to change the ruling which has hitherto governed the speeches, because a good number of hon. Members have made their speeches under the limitations of that ruling, and it would not, perhaps, be quite fair now to allow the discussion to range over a wider field.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the case where there is what we call a washery situated among a group of collieries but some distance away from them?

The CHAIRMAN: I will take care that the hon. and gallant Member gets an opportunity of putting his point, but I gather that some objection is taken to bringing in the whole question of the proviso at this point, and, therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman must confine the discussion to the question whether admittedly non-industrial hereditaments shall be included in the relief.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: On a point of Order. I wanted to know whether a washery would come within the definition of a mine.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order, but, if a washery is a commercial
and non-industrial concern, I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will be in order in replying on that point.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It is a necessary adjunct of the mine. The mine cannot be carried on unless the washery disposes of the small coal produced in the mine, and for that reason I desire to know whether it is included in the definition of a mine.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. If the hon. and gallant Member later on can bring it into order as a specific subject, I will hear it, but it is not a point of Order now.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the decision that the whole question of the proviso may be discussed on the next Amendment, I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I now draw my remarks to a close, merely saying this, that I think that all these conundrums which are being put are not very difficult to answer, because they really depend on whether or not these places are now technically factories or workshops. A place may not be a mine, but yet may be a factory or workshop. We have had the particular instance, which I think gave rise to some amusement, of the quarry. I was asked whether a quarry was a mine. A quarry, for this purpose, is not a mine, but it is a factory or workshop. I think that most of the conundrums that have been put in connection with establishments which are not literally part of a mine, but which are essential processes or parts of the operations which are carried on in the mine, depend upon whether or not they are factories or workshops, and probably the answer would be that they are. The case of the sales office, which was put to me by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling), stands in a different category altogether. That is strictly within the terms of the Amendment that is now being discussed, and undoubtedly, under the plan which is adopted in this Clause, an office which is separated entirely from the works, and which is carried on for purposes, not of production, but of sale or marketing, would be excluded from the benefit of the de-rating. Exactly the same point occurs, not merely in the case of a mine,
but in the case of, let us say, a manufacturing firm. There are plenty of offices to be found in the City of London which are the sales offices of manufacturing firms whose works are situated in the provinces—in Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, or wherever it may be. In those cases the works, being factories, would come under the Clause, but the offices——

Mr. KELLY: Would the offices in the works come in?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, the offices in the works which are concerned with the operation of the works, and which are, therefore, a part of the production, would come in, except that, as the hon. Member will recollect, those parts of the factory which are not themselves a factory within the meaning of the definition in the Factory Act will come under the 10 per cent. allowance, and, if the value of such non-productive parts of the factory exceeds 10 per cent. of the industrial or productive part, the excess has to pay the full rates. I think it will be found, however, that in the vast majority of cases these properties will not exceed the 10 per cent., and, therefore, will be thrown in with the rest of the works and will get the benefit of the relief. Where, however, you have offices which are quite apart from the works, and which are concerned with sales, as in the case that was put to me, those offices would not come in.

Mr. PALING: They would not come within the 10 per cent.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, they would not come in at all.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that this is the only Amendment on which we can discuss the general issue of the relief which the Government propose to give to productive as against distributive concerns. I should like to know whether that is so, because I am afraid I am a little in the dark. Will it be possible to discuss, on the next Amendment, that general question whether relief ought to be extended to distributive trades?

The CHAIRMAN: No; this is the right opportunity for that. The borderline cases come under the next Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is what I understood.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Do I understand that it will be possible to discuss the Amendment with which I am concerned, and which proposes to include the retail shop? I understood you to rule that that matter was to be discussed under the next Amendment. I do not mind on which Amendment it is discussed, but I do want the opportunity of discussing the question of distributive industrial works on one or other of these Amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: The proviso deals with the borderline cases—the mixed hereditaments—and all such cases can be discussed under the next Amendment. The general question whether hereditaments which are admittedly not industrial or productive at all should be included, comes under this Amendment, and this is the proper place at which to raise that question.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is what I understood, and, therefore, if you will allow me, I shall make my observations on this Amendment to begin with. The Minister of Health said that we could not hope for any scheme which would be free from anomalies and inconsistencies, and I quite agree that it is beyond the wit of man to conceive of any scheme that would not allow certain anomalies. All that you can do, in any scheme introduced by a Minister into the House of Commons, is to get something which gives rough-and-ready justice, and I am not going to criticise the proposal of the Government from the point of view of pointing out little anomalies that will exist. If we adopted any other principle, there would still be anomalies. But when the Minister of Health says that his reason for not proposing to extend the relief to distributive trades is that he has not the cash, I think his answer is inadequate, even granting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no money to spare. He says that it would be necessary either to get more cash from the Exchequer or to reduce the relief given to productive enterprises. Surely, there is a third method, and that is to use the money for the purpose of relieving those cases where there is the greatest need, whether they be productive or distributive. If the Minister of Health had adopted a method of that kind, even with the cash that he has at his disposal, I suggest to him and to this
Committee of the House of Commons that it would have been far more helpful to the trade and industry of this country.
There are industries which stand in no need of help at all. There are productive industries which are not merely productive but are highly profitable. I forget what the figure is—it was mentioned, I think, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and there is a great deal of dispute regarding it—but I think it is estimated roughly that from £6,000,000 to £10,000,000 of this money will go to highly profitable enterprises. I do not say that money which is put into those enterprises is not helpful, but it is not necessary. It merely helps to swell the profits. It will not increase the prosperity of those enterprises in the least, whereas there are distributive enterprises in highly-rated areas which would benefit, and if the sum which is wasted upon these profitable productive enterprises were put into them, it would improve trade and industry generally. The Minister seems to assume that all you have to do in this country is to improve productive enterprises. But the distributive enterprises of this country are suffering, and they are vital to the general trade of the country.
All the Minister has to do is to work out what his scheme does for the great cities that are dependent upon distribution—the seaports for instance. I have made a great study of this White Paper. I have done my very best to understand it. I am not going into a general criticism of it. I am only going to use illustrations to make clear my general argument. I do not pretend, however, to understand it perfectly, and Ministers must not complain of that, because it has taken them three months to understand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant. It has taken them quite two months to get a sufficient comprehension of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to do, to enable them to put it into something like intelligible writing. I do not complain. It takes a clever man to understand always what he himself really means, and when, in addition, he has to interpret the mind of another man who is equally clever and much more complex, then Heaven help him, if he is to explain what he intended. That is what the Minister has done. As I say, I an not complaining, but I do
not pretend that I thoroughly understand it, and I may be corrected later on in my remarks upon this document, which is fearfully and wonderfully made.
Let me put two or three cases which illustrate this Amendment. I shall take cases of towns which depend upon production and cases of towns which depend upon distribution. I take the case of Burton-on-Trent. The whole business of that very busy centre in the middle of England depends upon production, and, there, the relief given to the town, as I understand this document, is on something like 36 per cent. of the whole of the rates. That is to say, 36 per cent. of the assessment of Burton-on-Trent will be de-rated to the extent of 75 per cent. We come to Birmingham, which depends more upon production but also very largely upon distribution. There the de-rating is something like 18½ per cent. In proportion to the assessments of these two towns, Birmingham will get half what Burton-on-Trent gets. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain that to his constituents. I take a constituency which depends almost entirely upon distribution—Newcastle-on-Tyne. In Newcastle-on-Tyne de-rating is only 12 per cent. of the whole, because you only de-rate productive enterprises and Newcastle depends upon its distributive enterprises. The distributive enterprises of this great city of the North will get nothing. Because there is no production inside that county borough—the production is all outside—12 per cent. only of the industry of Newcastle-on-Tyne is derated. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including Armstrong's?"] I think Armstrong's works are outside. I am taking the figures in this document and certain figures which I have got. Newcastle-on-Tyne, as I said, only gets 12 per cent. of the whole of its assessment de-rated to the extent of 75 per cent. Burton-on-Trent will get 36 per cent. of its assessment de-rated. Thus Burton-on-Trent will get three times as much in the way of relief for its industry as Newcastle-on-Tyne. If you come to a place like Oxford where there are no productive industries—unless you can describe the colleges as such—you find that Oxford would only get 3 per cent. de-rated.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about Morris's?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They are out side. I think they only have a garage in, Oxford. Liverpool only gets 15 per cent. Liverpool depends upon distribution and I think the same thing applies to Man Chester. I have not the figures here but my impression is that Manchester will get a very low rate of de-ratement and relief. Yet what is the good of saying that Manchester is not essential to the productive industry of Lancashire? It is quite as essential as the place where you have the mills. Therefore it is not a fair way of dealing with the proposition. I take another case from this White Paper which baffles me altogether. It concerns those very heavily rated districts where the rates are over 20 shillings in the £. In those districts if there are any collieries, if there are any blast furnaces they will be de-rated to the extent of 75 per cent. The tradesmen will get no reduction in their assessment, neither will the workmen. In the case of Birmingham I looked up what the workmen's cottages would get. It would work out at a relief of about 2s. to 3s. 6d. a year—I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, it is 2s.0½d. to 3s. 6½d. The principle upon which the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding puzzles me.
Bedwellty has been notorious for the heavy rates which have crushed, not merely productive industry but distributive industry and also the cottages there. It will be found on page 55 of the White Paper under the heading of Monmouth. The reduction in that district will come to 1s. 7¼d. in the £. I take it, that is per head. The rate was 22s. 3d. and after the scheme has come into operation and after the payment of the special grant, it will be 20s. 7¾d. That is all that the distributive industries and cottages will get. Then take the case of Caerleon where the rates are not high and where there is no great industry. It is a quiet place and it makes very little difference to it, from one cycle to another, what happens outside. It goes on for ever. There the rate is reduced from 10s. 11d. to 7s. 5d. In the very heavily rated district the general reduction is only 1s. 7d. but in a district which is not at all heavily rated there is a reduction of 3s. 6d. in the £. The principle upon which this scheme has been worked out baffles me but there may be a complete explanation. It means that the distributive industries in Caerleon will get a reduction
of one-third of their rates, although those rates are only 10s. 11d. in the £, but districts like the Bedwellty district where they have great difficulty in making ends meet—districts whose customers cannot pay and whose customers cannot buy—are only getting a reduction for these distributive industries of 1s. 7d. in the £. I give another illustration from the same district——

Mr. BROAD: On a point of Order. Has this question of the distribution of the grant and the cases of these various districts anything to do with the Amendment under discussion?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must connect the instances which he is giving with the argument which he proposed to advance as to the distinction between production on the one hand and distribution or other commercial activities on the other. Obviously, he cannot go into a general discussion of the incidence of rating.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not going to do so. I have only two more illustrations and they are on exactly the same point. I fully realise your ruling, Sir, and I assure you I shall do my best to keep within it and I cannot see why the hon. Member should object. I take the case of Risca. In that case the reduction is only 1s. 3d. in the £. That means that distributive trades in a very heavily rated district would only get a reduction of 1s. 3d. in the £ and in several other districts you will find reductions of three shillings or four shillings in respect of distributive trades. I want to know how the right hon. Gentleman can defend the treatment, in this way, of the distributive trades which are essential to the business of the country. Let me give one further illustration which bears directly on the point before the Committee. What happens in these cases? I know these districts very well. At present the tradesmen there have to compete with people who come from great centres like Newport and Cardiff to sell their goods. These people come from districts that are much more lowly rated and much more prosperous. The traders in the highly rated districts have had the greatest difficulty in making ends meet during the years of depression. There
have been a great many failures among them and they have had a severe struggle.
If the right hon. Gentleman were able to say that, by the rating proposals which he now makes, he would guarantee a revival in the trade of these valleys I could understand it. But supposing there is not a revival—and I do not believe in my heart that the amount by which he is going to relieve any of the rates is going to make a substantial difference in these districts—what will be the position? The position will be this. These traders will have to compete with districts where the rates are even further reduced. People will come there with their vans and their lorries to sell goods at the very door and they will pay no rates at all in those districts. In the districts where they are getting the reduction, it is very often, as I pointed out, larger than the general reduction which is made in the highly rated area—much larger if you take some of these districts. I say that is a very unfair proposition. The right hon. Gentleman complains that he has not the cash. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has doled out the cash for him. We are paying this year, and we are going to pay next year, and at the end of that time he is going to relieve these industries. After we have paid year by year, he is going to leave these distributive industries very often in a worse position than they were before. Although the right hon. Gentleman says that he is going to see that they do not pay more, he only guarantees that practically for the first year. After the first year, there is a reduction in his grant, and the distributive industries may have to pay more.
5.0 p.m.
What will be the position of the distributive trades? Every time there is an increase in the rate of the district the position of the distributive trades will be that they will have to bear a larger proportion of the increase than they did before. The case of Halifax was given the other day. A threepenny rate there before this de-rating proposal would produce what it will take a fivepenny rate to produce in the future. Who will pay that fivepenny rate? The distributive industries will have to pay it, and the result of this scheme will be that you will increase their burdens in these heavily-
rated areas. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been selling the nation a pup on the instalment system.

Captain MACMILLAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has not given us quite the full vigour of the rhetorical style to which we have become accustomed by reading the alas far too abbreviated reports in the Sunday papers of the speeches which he delivers on Saturday afternoons. But he has contrived to do one very ingenious thing, namely, to make a speech for the purpose of a particular by-election from his place in the House of Commons. I cannot help thinking that he somewhat confused the issue which is really before the Committee, because he argued during the greater part of his speech the question as to whether one particular district or one particular locality is better treated than another under the Ministry of Health scheme which we shall come to in the autumn in the further development of this plan. What we are now discussing are the claims of the distributive trades as against those of the productive trades. We are not discussing the effect in any particular area as against the effect in some other area. We are discussing simply whether this particular relief should or should not be extended from the productive industries to the distributive industries. The right hon. Gentleman says that this rating relief is no good any way, and then he goes on to say that it is a monstrous thing that it is not given more extensively. And yet, after all, if it were given more widely it would be still less in amount. He thinks that it is monstrous that this rating relief which he said was useless any way, should not be given to the distributive trades as well as to the productive trades.
If the relief is so small and unimportant as he alleged it to be in respect of one half of the community, how can it be so great a grievance because it is not shared by the other half of the community? The real fact is, that neither he nor his party have ever attempted from the very beginning of this scheme to understand the basis upon which it is planned. Surely the truth is, that all the distributive trades depend for their final prosperity upon the prosperity of production and upon nothing else. The illustration that
he chose of the seaport towns was a particularly bad illustration for this reason. There is more being done for towns like Newcastle and other great seaports under this scheme than for any other town. Not only is there de-rating of docks and the means of transport but there is the fact that after all, the distributive trades of those towns and the cottage homes in those towns, and every single person in those towns depend for their chance of a decent livelihood upon the prosperity of the productive industry from which, as the first and the primary source, they draw their real support.
It is only by the revival of these essential and primary industries that the distributive trades, the householders or any other part of the community can see any real increase in their prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to grasp the fact that the Government are proceeding upon the plan of throwing the whole weight and the whole measure of the support that they can give upon the first element—production. If we can do anything to make production cheaper and easier, we automatically cure the evils that beset the distributor and the householder. The right hon. Gentleman is bent upon retrieving the shattered fortunes of the Liberal party by appealing merely to the selfish interests of those who do not appear to be directly benefited. He is trying to reinforce the Liberal party from the rentier class, but I believe that this plan—developed as it is in this Bill and in the further stages to come—will appeal to the nation as a whole, and that the electors will not be swept away by this appeal to what may seem to be their selfish interests.

The CHAIRMAN: This opens up a very wide extension of the subject of the Amendment. I really do not see, if the hon. and gallant Member continues in this strain, how I can save an even wider extension of the argument.

Captain MACMILLAN: I do not wish to do anything to disobey your Ruling. I venture to point out that as regards this Amendment our opinion is that we are doing the right thing in conferring this benefit of de-rating primarily on productive industry, because we believe by limiting it to that front we shall be able to make a much wider and more useful advance, and that by that means
we are in fact producing, or hope to produce, a chance for the revived prosperity of all the other industries which will be, if not direct, at any rate, indirect recipients and beneficiaries.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 199.

Division No. 238.]
AYES.
[5.9 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Hardle, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Beckett John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Maxton, James
Wiggins, William Martin


Gibbins, Joseph
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, f. W.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson.


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben



NOES.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col, Charles
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bullock, Captain M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burman, J. B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Dalkelth, Earl of


Atholl, Duchess of
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Balniel, Lord
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Duckworth John


Bennett, A. J.
Chapman, Sir S.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.
Christie, J. A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bethel, A.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Ellis, R. G.


Bevan, S. J.
Clarry, Reginald George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Blundell, F. N.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fairtax, Captain J. G.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fielden, E. B.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Cope, Major Sir William
Forrest, W.


Brass, Captain W.
Couper, J. B.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Briggs, J. Harold
Cowan, Sir Wm Henry (Islington, N.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gates, Percy


Gower, Sir Robert
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Grace, John
Macintyre, Ian
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
McLean, Major A.
Sandon, Lord


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Savery, S. S.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Making, Brigadier-General E.
Skelton, A. N.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hammersley, S. S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Smithers, Waldron


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Haslam, Henry C.
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Storry-Deans, R.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nicholson, col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Templeton, W. P.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Nuttall, Ellis
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Oakley, T.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Waddington, R.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Pennefather, Sir John
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Frederick George
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Perring, Sir William George
Watts, Sir Thomas


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, S. R.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Jephcott, A. R.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ramsden, E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lamb, J. Q.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wood, E. (Chestr, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lougher, Lewis
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Luce, Major Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell



Lumley, L. R.
Ropner, Major L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
and Captain Wallace.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sandeman, N. Stewart

Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out the words "subject as hereinafter provided."
Notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in reply to some observations which I made on the last Amendment when I raised a certain point, I wish again to emphasise that point, which I meant in all sincerity. I think that something will have to be done to alter the structure of this Clause, because the words "subject as hereinafter provided" mean that you carve out of what you have described as industrial hereditaments, a dwelling-house, a retail shop, a distributive wholesale business, storage, etc. My point is that you cannot fit within the description given in the Clause itself of "industrial hereditaments," any single one of the paragraphs mentioned in Sub-section (1), except, perhaps, paragraph (e). The Minister, from the layman's point of view, puts it this way: "We all know what a factory or workshop is. We all know the general concern so described, but you may find that in that general concern a portion which is a dwelling-
house, a portion a retail shop and so on, and you may find that portion to loom so large as to make it primarily the real purpose of the concern. In such a case the whole concern is ruled out of the term industrial hereditaments. That would be all right if the definition of "industrial hereditaments" in the Clause covered the whole concern, but it does not. In Sub-section 2 the Minister draws the very distinction which I have in mind, because he says in regard to a garage:
For the purposes of this Act any place used for the housing or maintenance of road vehicles shall, notwithstanding that it is situate within the close, curtilage or precincts forming a factory or workshop and used in connection therewith, be deemed not to form part of the factory or workshop, but save as aforesaid, the expressions 'factory' and 'workshop' have respectively the same meanings as in the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1920.
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Factory and Workshops Act of 1901 for the definition he will find in Section 149 (4):
Where a place is situate.
Then come the very words that are imported by the draftsman into this Bill
within the close, curtilage or precincts forming a factory or workshop is solely used for some purpose other than the manufacturing process or handicraft carried on in the factory or workshop, that place shall not be deemed to form part of the factory or workshop for the purposes of this Act, but shall, if otherwise it would be a factory or workshop, be deemed to be a separate factory or workshop.
There we have the definition which is given in the Factory and Workshops Act of 1901. That Act says that you look at the whole concern, at the close, the curtilage and precincts and you single out a part to find what is the workshop or factory and that part is the part of the concern in which the actual manufacturing processes or handicraft are carried on. That definition is made in the Factory and Workshops Act for a good reason and that is that you are there dealing with the safety of workers and there was no use in promulgating regulations to be observed in the storage portion, in the distributive portion or in the office and so on; but only in the portions where it was necessary to apply protection in connection with the mechanically dangerous processes carried on. Therefore for that purpose you narrow your definition of a factory and workshop to the actual place where dangerous wheels are spinning. That feeing the definition, you have already excluded a dwelling-house, a retail shop, a distributive wholesale business, storage and "any other purposes whether or not similar to any of the foregoing, which are not those of a factory or workshop." They are excluded from the Factory and Workshops Act. Therefore, the phrases which I seek now to exclude are surplusage and confusing, because a "factory" or "workshops" cannot contain a retail shop or a dwelling-house or the other things mentioned in this Subsection. The factory or workshop cannot be primarily used for a purpose which the very definition has already eliminated.
There can be no question as to the soundness of my argument. I am speaking in the presence of a highly intelligent lawyer, the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows as well as I do that in Courts of Justice, when Acts of Parliament are brought up the first thing that the Judge says is, "I must as far as possible give
effect to the language that Parliament uses. Parliament here uses eight lines to carve out of the Factory and Workshops Act certain things. How can I carve out what never by any possibility could have been included? Therefore, I must not give to a workshop the meaning which I am bound by law to give." This Clause will lead to hopeless confusion, and I do press upon the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to consult the draftsman again and see whether it cannot be put right in the interests of everybody.
I come to what the Chairman has accurately designated as the true purpose of the Clause, namely, to deal with composite hereditaments. Assuming that the Clause carried out in language what is really in the Minister's mind, namely, that we are dealing with the whole factory concern, the right hon. Gentleman wants to say in regard to the whole factory concern that there will only be de-rating of factory concerns which are not primarily devoted to one or other of the specified purposes. Is it not a very dangerous thing to throw forth to the thousand and one surveyors and Courts in the country the duty of defining what he means by the word "primarily." Primarily may mean primarily in purpose, primarily in the amount of money made or primarily in the number of employés, primarily in extent, of space or in other ways. We all know of factories where the actual portion which needs protection under the Factory and Workshops Act is not 20 per cent. of the whole concern. I mentioned the other day that when I was at Carlisle, I visited Carr's biscuit factory, a huge concern, where I found that the place where they actually mix the biscuits and which is the true factory part, the part which is to be de-rated, is only a small portion of an immense concern. There is the distributive part at the other end, where the goods are packed and sent out to the wholesale trade. Is that primarily a storage place, is it primarily a distributing centre? That is a question which you might leave with the surveyor. Why use the word "primarily"? Why should you rule out, on broad principles, all relief to a real factory, although it is a producing place, simply because its primary purpose is distributive or retail?
There are tens of thousands of bespoke tailors in the country, 25,000 altogether, and all well-dressed persons like myself go to them. How do they stand? It is true that they send out suits of clothes; but the cutter is upstairs. Are they to get no relief at all, although they are producers, simply because in conjunction with the business there is a shop window which says that their primary duty is to invite people to go in and give them an order. I understand that a deputation called on the Minister from these bespoke tailors, and that the answer given to them was sympathetic but guarded. It certainly conveyed the impression that no doubt Amendments would be raised dealing with this question and that the Government would consider them. I hope they will. The same remark applies to the bootmaker and the baker, whose case has been discussed ad nauseam. Let me put this proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. I am against the Bill, not because I do not think it is going to do good, but because I think a far better scheme has been evolved by the Liberal party. But we are dealing with the Government scheme now, and, as it must go through, we want to make it as far as we can a workable Measure.
Is not the reasonable thing, first, to define clearly and definitely what you mean by a producing factory; drop out your "primarily," your "dwelling-house," all these things, and leave it to your surveyor to say whether it is a factory or not, whether it is a workshop or not? He would be a fool if he said that a place was a factory where one suit of clothes was made in a back parlour and there was a frontage of 50 feet devoted to the selling of ties. Do not attempt to do it by bringing in the word "primarily" and all this catalogue of exceptions. Define clearly and definitely what you mean by a producing factory, and we shall know exactly where we are, and having defined clearly and without exception what your factory or workshop shall be, then in Clause 4 settle your derating proposals, and we should get rid of all these difficulties. The Government should reconsider the whole of these Clauses, and bring up a short Clause showing exactly what they mean by factories
and workshops; then they could apply their de-rating proposals and get rid of many of their difficulties.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend and myself are much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) for the care and attention which he has evidently given to this matter, and I wish we could really dispose of it in the easy way that he has suggested. All we have to do, I understand, is to say to the local surveyor: "You do all this. We leave it all to you. You shall decide what is a factory or workshop; whether the smaller hereditaments should or should not be included, and we will abide by your decision." I wish that course were possible, but even if it were possible I do not think it would be acceptable to the very large number of citizens who are much concerned and interested as to whether they would come within the de-rating proposals of the Government or not. I do not think the proposal is even acceptable to the members of the Liberal party, because of the doubts which must spring up in their mind when such a proposal is made. The question of definition has been the subject of very considerable thought and attention, but I am quite ready to discuss further with the hon. and learned Member with regard to definition generally. Let me reply to the points which he has raised. They are of a technical character, but are rather interesting to the Committee. He challenged us on the scheme of definition in the Bill. In the first place, we say that:
In this Act the expression 'industrial hereditament' means a hereditament… occupied and used as a mine or, subject as hereinafter provided, as a factory or workshop.
The definition of a factory or workshop is not only well known to lawyers, but is also well defined in every local area in the country. Every employer to-day knows exactly whether his place is a workshop or factory by the operations of the Home Office and the Home Office inspectors. Therefore, from the point of view of those engaged in trade, this is a convenient method of approaching a definition, and it is a logical and scientific method. It is necessary, if you are to avoid a considerable amount of difficulty
and expense, not only a waste of money, but a waste of time, to except from an industrial hereditament a large number of other premises of which the factory or workshop forms only a small part. There are a large number of hereditaments in which the factory or workshop is a very small part indeed, and, therefore, from the point of view of the operation of this scheme and on general principles, it is desirable that those industrial hereditaments which are primarily-occupied for the purposes enumerated in the Clause should not be included. In other words, every factory or workshop shall be included except those which are primarily occupied for the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (f). If you do not have this further proviso, you will include in your definition of industrial hereditaments all those premises which are primarily occupied as a dwelling-house or a retail shop. Take the case of a private dwelling-house which has a little room at the back used as a dressmaking room, or take the case of a retail shop, in some portion of which there may be a small machine used in the business; these would all come under the definition of industrial hereditaments if you did not have this further proviso in the Clause. It is for this reason that the proviso was inserted, and in the opinion of the Government it would be unwise and would defeat the whole object of the Government scheme if every little place which had a dressmaking machine at the back was able to come forward and say that it was within the definition of industrial hereditament and therefore claimed to have the relief.

Mr. HARNEY: I want the Parliamentary Secretary to address himself to the real point which he rather skated over. An industrial hereditament equals a factory or workshop; a factory or workshop equals a factory or workshop having the same meaning as a factory or work-shop under the Act of 1901; therefore, industrial hereditament is confined to that portion of the factory concerned which is engaged in the purely mechanical process.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. and learned Member is not correct. A factory or workshop, as defined in the Factory and Workshop Act, is not confined to purely industrial hereditaments. When we come
to examine the definition of a factory or workshop under Section 149 of that Act, we shall find that it does not mean only that exact portion where industrial work and machinery is going on. The definition is much more extensive. It includes very many other things. It includes certain rooms which are the subject of inspection by the Home Office and a great deal more than the actual places where the work and operations are being carried on. That again was a mistake of the hon. and learned Member when he thought that that definition was wrong. The definition is a more extensive one than he thought. When you examine what relief you get when the reference is to a workshop or factory within Section 149 of the 1901 Act, you get a much more extensive area for relief than you get by saying merely the factory or workshop itself. The employer will know the exact area for which he will get relief owing to the inspections of the Home Office. The hon. and learned Member did not read the whole of the definition. I invite him to discuss this matter with me, and I have no doubt we shall be able to come to some satisfactory conclusion. I fully appreciate the suggestion which he has made; we value very much any suggestions which he makes in this connection. Then he criticised the word "primarily."

Miss LAWRENCE: Hear, hear!

Sir K. WOOD: I notice that the hon. and learned Member has an echo in the hon. Lady opposite, for she cheers him. The word "primarily" has been inserted after very careful consideration, and I think it leaves the matter in its most practical form. It leaves the assessment committees of the country to come to a conclusion, as a matter of fact, whether an industrial hereditament is primarily occupied for the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) to (f). It is a question of fact. We believe that the assessment committees will not have much difficulty in 99 cases out of 100 in coming to a conclusion on the subject. Anyone acquainted with the work and the personnel of assessment committees throughout the country appreciates that those committees in most cases know full well whether a particular hereditament is primarily used for the purpose of a dwelling-house or not. So you can test the definition by all the means which are set out in the Bill. For
instance, there is the question whether the primary purpose is for use as a retail shop or not. I suggest that the method proposed in the Bill is a good way of dealing with the matter, because it leaves the decision to people who have local knowledge, and they have to give a decision not as a matter of law but as a matter of fact as to whether or not a hereditament is primarily used for a particular purpose. The only alternative is one which naturally we have considered, and that is to provide for a certain percentage instead of using the word "primarily."

Miss LAWRENCE: Hear, hear!

Sir K. WOOD: I am again supported by the hon. Lady opposite. The suggestion is that 10 or 15 per cent. might be factory and the rest not, and that that should be the guiding principle. If we adopted that suggestion we should again be in very great difficulty, for a percentage might bring in its train many more hardships than do the proposals of the Bill. Therefore, I suggest that, both from the point of view of the legal structure of the Measure and from the point of view of the method which we have adopted, the assessment Committees will be able to arrive at a decision, and that this is the most convenient method of approach. On the merits, and on the question whether a small dwelling-house should be excluded or a retail shop should be included, I could only say that that is a question which we have discussed again and again on this Bill. If we once began to distribute money over these millions of people—that is what it would come to—the whole of the money would be absolutely lost. What help would it be to the trade and industry of the country? Obviously, if you want to strike an effective blow at unemployment you must concentrate your relief. If I had the opportunity I would like to reply to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who left hurriedly, no doubt for other purposes, immediately after making his speech. I hope that that will not become a habit.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, my right hon. Friend had to go to an appointment upstairs, and it was with great regret that he left when he did.

Sir K. WOOD: The replies that I have given have been given with the intention of dealing seriously with the points that have been raised. If any hon. Member accepts the principle of the Government's scheme and wishes to give the best assistance to trade and industry, I suggest that he should not support the Amendment in the Division Lobby. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. F. K. Griffith) is in a very difficult position in relation to the Bill. His party has come out officially against the Bill, and yet day by day the industries of Middlesbrough are needing assistance. The hon. Member could not afford to have the relief distributed in this way. He wants Middlesbrough trade an industry to be assisted in the best possible way. It would be of no assistance to Middlesbrough to divide all this money between retail shops and private traders. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) also wants to make the best of the Bill. He appeared with a deputation which asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accelerate the operation of the Bill. If he is in that mood, which I hope is the mood to which all hon. Members are coming, I suggest that he should not press his Amendment further.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I desire to support the Amendment, because in my view the discrimination which the Bill proposes and which will exist unless the Amendment be carried, will not work. When I say that it will not work, I mean, of course, that it will not work satisfactorily. It may be quite possible for the Bill to become an Act and for it to be put into operation, but it will be no solution if the Bill when in operation fails to satisfy the people of the country. The right hon. Gentleman told us that if the matter were dealt with otherwise, the relief would be dissipated. In reply to that statement I say that it is no good having a system of relief which will not work. It is better to have something, even if it be dissipated, that will work, than something which, while in his view it may be concentrated, will not work at all.
I wish to call special attention to the exclusion of the retail shops. I have on the Paper an Amendment dealing with that particular point, and as I under-stand
that we shall have to give a silent vote on that Amendment, this is the place on which the matter can be properly discussed. The difficulty of discrimination comes into special prominence when the question of the retail shop is under consideration. In the first place you have the very large number of cases of retail shops which are partly retail shops and partly factories and workshops. The Mover of the Amendment dealt with some of these, and we had a very large number of illustrations given on Monday night, when another Amendment was being discussed. I would remind the Committee that it is not merely a question, as the Minister would have us believe, of a dwelling-house, with an occasional garment being made in a back room. This question often concerns large premises which are devoted to manufacturing work. The hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring) mentioned the case of workers, as many as 500, being employed, and of the premises being classed as a shop and not as a factory because they were connected in one hereditament with a large frontage which was used for the purpose of a shop.
As the Committee has heard on several occasions, there are many illustrations of that kind. They refer to all sorts of trades, and incidentally they deal with one that has not hitherto been mentioned. I refer to the meat traders, who in some cases carry on large numbers of manufacturing processes and yet, because they are connected with retail shops, will be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. Quite apart from these border-line cases, where everything will turn on the precise meaning of the word "primarily," I go further and contend that you cannot really discriminate between the productive and the distributive parts of industry. They all are really one and indivisible parts of the actual industry as a whole. In that connection I have received a strong appeal from the newsagents, who point out that as they read the Bill actual newspaper production will be de-rated under this scheme. I do not know whether that is correct or not; there seems to be some doubt about it; but in the opinion of the newsagents that is the case. But if so, while the newspaper firms that are producing the newspapers are to be de-rated, the newsagents are to get no relief. As a matter of fact
the production of a newspaper goes on all the way from the editor's room to the time when the newspaper is in the hands of the reader. It is quite impossible to draw a line at one particular point and describe one part as production and the other part as distribution.
Difficulties of this kind are reaching us from traders throughout the country, and very strong protests are being made against the form in which the Bill is drawn. I have a protest from the chamber of trade in my constituency, which supports me in moving the Amendment to which my name is attached.
6.0 p.m.
What is the answer of the Minister to these objections? He says, in the first place: "I admit that there are anomalies. You will always have anomalies. Anomalies always have existed and always will exist, and it is no answer to any particular proposal of the Government that it does not deal with anomalies which exist." It is quite true that you cannot deal with all the anomalies that exist, but this Clause of the Bill will create new anomalies, and those anomalies are not little ones; they are very large and very grave anomalies. Consider what the proposal actually does. You have two premises side by side, rated equally at the present time. When the Bill comes into operation one of those premises is going to pay four times the rates of its neighbour, because it happens to fall on one side of the line and its neighbour happens to fall on the other side of the line. They may be very similarly used. One succeeds in satisfying the surveyor that it is primarily used for one purpose and the other just fails to satisfy him. After that these two premises are rated one four times the rate of the other. Not only so, but the unfortunate person who fails to get any relief under this Bill will have to pay a very considerable part of the money which goes to relieve his neighbour, because in the retail shop, through the petrol tax, he will have to be finding the money with which his neighbour is being benefited.
I do not believe the English people will stand that unfair, discriminating anomaly. It is true the English people are very long suffering. They put up with a great many wrongs that they have. They will oven put up with a great many unfair injustices which exist between
them and someone else. What they will not stand without very great protest is a new injustice being inflicted upon them of this kind which puts their neighbour, who in all other respects appears to them precisely similar to themselves, in a totally new position of advantage over them. That being so, I do not think the Bill will work out in the way its promoters suppose.
Another defence the Minister put forward is this. He says the very greatest advantage we can give to the retail shopkeeper is to benefit the producer. It may he true that the retail shopkeeper will have to pay in the first instance money which is to go to the producer. It may be true—I do not know whether the Minister will go as far as this but in our opinion it is so—that the actual rates to be paid by the retail trader will be enhanced. All that he suggests and more is to come back to the retail trader, because the producer will be benefited, and on account of the benefit accruing to the producer, in the long run the retail shop will benefit at the same time. That may satisfy the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary. I am not quite sure that it does. I am rather inclined to think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in common language, sold them a pup in this matter and they have had to adopt the animal, which they do not very much like. If they are so simple as to be satisfied with this argument I am sorry for them, because I am sure, though it may satisfy them, it will not satisfy the retail shopkeepers. They will say, rightly, "We have to pay this year the petrol tax in order that some time next year the producer may get some advantage out of this Measure, and if it is true that the producer gets advantage out of the Measure, and if, as a result of that, he extends his business and gives better wages we are promised that we may get some advantage which will compensate us for the loss we are sustaining at present."
I do not think the retail shopkeeper will view with satisfaction that very hypothetical advantage which may come to him in the remote future in compensation for the sacrifices he is being called upon to make and, therefore. I do not think the Bill, even if the Government succeed in getting it on to the Statute Book, will work in the way they antici-
pate. With their very large majority they can steam roller those of us who are opposing it, but they cannot steam roller in the same easy way the sense of fairness up and down the country, and they will find that, after their steam roller has passed over us and the Bill is on the Statute Book, the indignation at the sense of injustice which the Bill creates will be so widespread that, instead of being in their favour, it will act as a boomerang and will strike them on its return.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: Since the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed to me, I think it right to say a few words its reply. He has really mistaken the difficulty, though there is a difficulty which I will explain. The difficulty he has imagined is that I am full of concealed passion for this Bill which I have to repress under a mistaken sense of loyalty to my party. That is not the case. My difficulty is that I am sincerely anxious to make the best of the Bill but, as the Government goes on turning down every kind of effort that is made from these benches, and from above the Gangway, to make it better, I find it increasingly hard to support it. It is true there is something, even if the Amendment is not carried, for Middlesbrough in the Bill. It will be very difficult to collect all these millions from the petrol users without some of it leaking. But we are complaining at the same time that the basis is entirely wrong. This Amendment is one of the efforts to make it better. Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose, when he imagines this enthusiasm in Middlesbrough, that there are no small bakers, milliners and tailors and workmen's cottages in Middlesbrough, for the benefit of whom this Amendment is addressed?
We have our retail problem, and we have this difficulty, just as much as any other place in the country, but our difficulty is that in all attempts to improve the Bill one is met from day to day with entirely inconsistent opposition from the Ministry. When we were trying to get special benefits for the distressed areas, particularly when we were asking the Ministry to concentrate, they refused to do so. They said it was impossible. Now when we ask them to be a little more expansive, to bring in productive people carrying on productive industries within the scope of the Bill they are all for concentration.
Their attitude has changed completely. When we ask for a simple measure of justice to be done to these quite genuine producers who happen to be carrying on other occupations as well, we are told they have no money for this, and all the time the money is being poured out to other producers who do not need it. In order that the right hon. Gentleman may not be any longer under the mistake he made just now, I associate myself completely with all the criticisms which have been made from these benches and from above the Gangway.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I should like to say a word or two on this question, because I know the position from the retail traders' point of view considerably better than does the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). It is a position of great difficulty and we have to consider which is the best method of dealing with it. It has been suggested, and indeed my name is down to an Amendment, that the percentage basis should be the point upon which we could try to reach a reasonable arrangement, but after considering the matter carefully I can see a great many difficulties about even a percentage basis. The man who comes just a point below the basis fixed would be aggrieved because his neighbour came one point above it. I know the difficulties we had in the old days in connection with the Inhabited House Duty. If you had large premises in which a business was being carried on and a very small dwelling house attached, you were told by the authorities that was an inhabited house within the meaning of the Act, and therefore you had to pay the Inhabited House Duty on the premises which carried on the business and the house as well. If you were fortunate enough to have a house in the suburbs and did not live over your shop premises you did not pay, because it was a lock-up shop, and therefore business premises. We got over that difficulty all right by blocking up the doorway between the house and the shop. If this passes into law as it is, the mixed businesses which are partly industrial and partly distributive will find a way out of the difficulty in respect of that.
I realise that there is a difficulty. [Interruption.]. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) says the relief will be dissipated. My idea is that it is
not so much a question of giving relief to industry as industry that we are worrying about. We find the money for that already. It is the overlapping where the difficulty comes in, and it will be a difficult matter for certain traders to meet. Take a large co-operative store, for instance, who do all their baking for their stores in one large bakery, separate and apart altogether from the distributive side of the business. I take it that, as a factory within the meaning of the Act, they will be able to claim to be de-rated for that. On the other hand, take the ordinary private baker, who may be doing more in the way of wholesale trade, and therefore the bakery is a much larger part of his premises than the little shop. Then you are up against a difficulty. He thinks we are responsible for fixing this, bearing in mind what the Act itself states, that where the business is primarily that of producing he will be able to make a case and go before the assessment committee, men on the spot who know the position and know the difficulty he is up against and they will treat him fairly and squarely. They will put down a definite percentage. It is possible that there will be an injustice done in that case.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The argument is (hat if these small places are given relief, the intended relief to productive industries will be dissipated. The Revenue officers will be present at the local assessment committee so that he may have some means of protecting the Government scheme. How then will the small trader be protected by the Bill?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: If the hon. Member has had as much experience of local assessment committees as I have he will know that invariably, when it comes to a question between a revenue officer and the local person who is to be assessed, they are going to give full consideration to the claim of the local person. As a matter of fact, the matter was threshed out very clearly in another Act of Parliament passed by this House where it was suggested that a revenue officer should be in attendance acting in a judical capacity, and people did not like the idea at all. I am not afraid of leaving the matter in the hands of the local assessment committee to deal with if I have to go before them.
The point was raised by the hon. Member for West Leicester about the trader having some benefit possibly in the dim and distant future. I have discussed this matter with various traders' organisations and with my fellow traders, and I believe they are convinced, as I am, that this will help the trader to get an increased turnover. What does it matter if you get 1s. or 1s. 6d. off your rates if there are no customers to purchase in the shop? If this scheme is going to help productive industry, as I believe it is, the result of that will be that we shall have more employment and, what is more important, more full time employment. The difficulty we are really up against is that our customers are only working two or three days a week. We know they are decent and respectable citizens, and we have to give them credit to help them over their difficulties, and if they were employed full time they would be able to pay their way. If the Bill is going to produce the results we hope—none of us can say it will not until it has been given a fair test—we are going to get the benefit, and get it pretty quickly too, because people who have been unemployed, or partly employed, are wanting goods very badly, and as soon as they earn money we shall feel the benefit.
Therefore, I say that we do not want to be worrying much about a little off our own rates so much as hoping that we shall get an increased turnover. A good deal of the argument on those lines has had the bottom knocked out of it by the White Paper that has been issued this week-end. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Quite evidently hon. Members have not paid as close attention to that White Paper as I have. At any rate, I am satisfied that I, as a trader who will not be able to claim any relief whatever on any ground that is stated in the Bill, shall not have to pay any more in the way of rates on my premises and shall get a benefit in my own town because the formula happens to work out to our advantage. I am perfectly satisfied that this scheme is going to help, not only the producing industries, but the distributive industries as well, in the way that I have indicated.

Miss LAWRENCE: I want to turn for a moment to the speech of the Parliamentary
Secretary, and to begin on the narrow, technical ground of what the word "primarily" means. There is an old proverb which warns people against trying to be more catholic than the Pope, and I always think of that proverb when I hear the Parliamentary Secretary speak after his chief. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the assessment committees would be able to decide on a question of facts, but his chief said:
I daresay there will be some criticism directed to this word 'primarily'…. I have given long thought to this problem. I have been unable to find any way by which you could once and for all settle in this Bill how a particular property, when conditions vary so much, is definitely and finally to be classified. I think it is a question that must be left to the common sense of the rating authority. The rating authority…will make its decisions…and if the claimant is dissatisfied with the decision, he can take it to the Assessment Committee, and, if the Assessment Committee is against him, he can take it to Quarter Sessions, and then to a higher Court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1928; cols. 188–9, Vol. 218.]
It is not a question, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, of trusting the local people who know the facts. Although the Parliamentary Secretary considers that the word "primarily" is so excellent, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister admitted that the word was one which had given him anxious consideration. I ventured to do what I believe Boy Scouts call a daily piece of kindness by setting down an Amendment to give a clear definition of the word "primarily," and I am very much encouraged by something which is on the Order Paper to-day. I outlined in my Second Reading speech some Amendments to Clause 5, and they went down in due course. On opening the Order Paper to-day, I saw the distinguished name of the Minister of Health added to a considerable number of the Amendments which I put down.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: And my name dropped!

Miss LAWRENCE: Those Amendments were put down to remove from the minds of all concerned any fear of possible litigation with regard to the word "primarily." There was a conference of surveyors in the North of England not long ago, and expert after expert got up and said they could not under-stand
the word "primarily," and they hoped there would be some explanation of it. Litigation is a very great evil. I think it is one of the humbler duties of Members of Parliament to help to frame legislation that is clear and definite, and unless the guillotine cuts us off, we shall go into the Lobby for a clear definition of the word "primarily."
I come to the other main objection. It is, said that it does not matter about relieving the little businesses, so long as we give money to the big businesses. The Minister said it would be a great pity to waste money in stimulating the little enterprises, because the small amount of relief they would get for the small premises would be negligible. Anybody can see how fallacious that argument is, for if you have a big business and a small business side by side in the same locality, the rent is in the same proportion to the overhead costs of the business in both cases, and it is ridiculous to say that it is a good thing to give 5 per cent. to a big business because it is a big business, but that 5 per cent. to a little man would be so small as to be inappreciable. The amount of relief to the business is the same in both cases. We have been told that these little people in the aggregate do not make a vast amount of employment, but they do. I have in my hand a circular from the meat distributive traders, 35,000 of them, and they make an appreciable quantity of the preserved meats that are sold. From the electoral point of view, the little man has an advantage because he is more numerous.
To come back to the main point, it does not reduce prices to give a gift to the people who are already producing wealth. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said he did not wish to dissipate relief by giving it to large and small, but I am tired of that word "dissipation." The problem is easy. Geographically, there are certain districts, although not so very many, where the rates are killing the inhabitants. If you devoted the £31,000,000 to relieving everybody in the distressed areas, you would smooth inequalities and do more for the industry and trade of the country than by the money which is being scattered on the just and unjust alike. You are throwing away money with both hands in directions which can do nothing
for productive industry, and our contention is that this Bill has all the essential evils which invariably flow from interfering arbitrarily, capriciously and partially with the operations of trade and commerce. The Bill inflicts very grave injustices on a large number of persons and is unworkable in its details. I have made a good many prophecies in regard to this Bill. The first one that I made has been fulfilled to the letter. I said that Clause 5 must be altered, and it has been altered, and——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): I must remind the hon. Member that we are now dealing with a particular Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: This Bill inflicts injustice on a great number of small persons, and I prophesied that the partial operation of the Bill and its complexity would rouse the country against it. That prophecy is being partially fulfilled, as is evidenced by the number of circulars from traders and others which are coming in; and when we get, as we ought to have at some not distant date, the views of the local authorities on this Bill, it will be seen that these technical points to which I have endeavoured to draw attention are things in which the local authorities are extremely interested and which will undoubtedly produce a very great crop of litigation.

Mr. TOMLINSON: I recognise that the money available will not be sufficient to provide relief for all branches of industry and that the Minister has found it necessary to distinguish between productive and distributive industries. He is very anxious that the relief to productive industry should be definite and substantial, but what I want to point out is that under this Clause there is an equally clear distinction being drawn between large productive industries and small productive industries, and I want to protest as strongly as I can against that distinction. It seems to me that there are many small productive industries in this country that will not receive any relief at all under this Measure, and I appeal to the Minister to consider, between now and the Report stage, whether it would not be possible for him to accept one of the Amendments, which I fear will not be reached before 7.30 this evening, to alter the words "if it is primarily" to the words "in so far as
it is." I would suggest that that Amendment should be accepted, thus making is possible to help industries that really can make out a strong case for aid.
I hold in my hand a letter which I have received this morning from the retail tailoring trade in Lancaster and Morecambe, employing local labour, in which they protest against relief being given to large industries when they themselves, the smaller industries, are receiving no help whatever. That criticism also holds good with regard to bakers and many other branches of industry. I will not detain the Committee by refering to the many others to which I might refer, because there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, but I wanted to take this opportunity, before the guillotine falls at half-past seven, of asking the Minister if he could not consider the cases to which I have referred.

Mr. BROMLEY: I was quite touched by the simple faith of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), who thinks that everything will be perfectly all right for the small traders when this Bill becomes law. I do not wish particularly to criticise the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot refrain from suggesting to him that he may have been moved in what he said more in support of his party than in the interests of the small trading community. He did to a great extent repudiate the suggestion of the Minister, and of the Parliamentary Secretary, that this: Bill is going to stimulate trade, and went on the other tack, that it may, by increased wages and employment, benefit the small traders. What I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is that it will do nothing of the sort. Belief is to be given to large undertakings, and I think the Minister himself suggested that it was useless to consider dissipating this money among small businesses, but I would suggest that experience should teach all sides of the House that where great undertakings make any profits or are eased in any way by expenditure such as this Measure contemplates, they do not in a generous and distinterested manner turn it on to their workpeople in greater wages or in assisting them to a greater spending power.
The larger industries have been paying in profits in recent years from 5 to 50 and more per cent., with bonuses during the
last few years of 50 per cent., and their profits will go where the well-to-do shareholders take them, that is, abroad, to be spent on luxuries, in long holidays and in fine exhibitions of themselves and their relatives in some of the notable holiday resorts of the world. If this Bill covered small productive industries, which the hon. Member for Grimsby thinks will benefit by increased wages and increased trade, the money would be passed on to be spent in the towns where the small productive industries are situated.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: The hon. Member is referring to small productive industries. I was referring to the distributive industries. The small productive industries, if they are productive, will get the benefit.

Mr. BROMLEY: Not at all. The hon. Member, apparently, does not understand the point which he was endeavouring to put before the Committee. The Bill will not assist the small productive industries, and consequently it cannot assist, by increased wages and increased employment, the small distributive industries either. In the town which I represent the traders are mostly small traders, who have been hit exceedingly hard by virtue of the nation's necessity overcrowding the town; when the nation's necessity ceased, the town was left to deal with the dregs of it after the nation had had the value. We have crashing businesses, bankruptcies of small shopkeepers, and small productive industries over-weighted with rates. Under this Bill, they will, where they have a small van using petrol, pay towards this scheme, and the cost of their businesses will go up. They will get no relief which would enable them to spend money in their own town and so make local employment and benefit the traders, but they will see the money which they and others contribute go to the great undertakings.
I am not complaining about the Tory party looking after their well-to-do friends. That is what they are here for, and I hope that when the party of which I am a member is returned, we shall look after the poor people. I am not cavilling about it, but we may as well call a spade a spade and face facts. The small traders whom I represent will see what they contribute going to huge undertakings, to great multiple firms, and it will not assist the town in the slightest degree, because the money will be spent
in the manner I have indicated. I hope that not only the hon. Member for Grimsby, but other people who are sincerely interested in the trading community, will make the Government realise, in spite of the unrelenting attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary, that what they are doing is being watched by these small traders and productive industries.

Mr. SHINWELL: There is no stronger argument against the use of the Guillotine than the confusion of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). His interjection, when the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) was speaking, proved that conclusively. He, apparently, holds the view that productive industries of all kinds are to be protected under this Measure. If there is one thing more clear than any other, it is that there are hybrid industries, which are both productive and distributive, that are not safeguarded at all. That is the point of substance which is now being debated. It would be desirable for the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to remove the confusion of mind in which their hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby finds himself. There is nothing more extravagant than the assertion of the hon. Member for Grimsby that an increase in the purchasing power of the wage-earner will result from the passing of this Measure. He has said something even more strange, to which I invite the attention of the Committee. He said that the distributive trades, the shopkeepers and retailers with whom he is associated, are not very much concerned with a very little measure of relief from de-rating proposals. He said in effect, "How does a mere matter of 1s. 6d. concern them? If they can increase the purchasing power of the wage earners it will be ever so much better." One might suppose that he believes that rates are not so much a burden upon industry as has been supposed. Clearly, if he is not desirous of removing the burden of rates from distributive industry, then rates are not such a burden as he and his Friends have been trying to make out. Perhaps the hon. Member might consider that in his leisure moments. I understand that he has devoted quite a lot of time to considering this Measure, but it might have been desirable if he had considered this
point. I come to the point of the increase in the purchasing power of the wage earner. It is proposed by this Measure to devote relief to the extent of about £30,000,000 to industry. Does the hon. Member for Grimsby suggest that the whole of that £30,000,000 will pass to the wage earners of this country? Obviously, the reply to that question must be in the negative.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: My own opinion is that the biggest part of it will go back into the pockets of the wage earners in increased employment, and, I hope, in increased wages to the workers.

Mr. SHINWELL: It is, at all events, clear that the hon. Member is not so extravagant now as he was before. He does not suppose that the whole of the £30,000,000 is to pass to the wage earner; what he now says is that some part of it, perhaps the major part, will pass to the wage earner. There is no one in this Committee, however much time he may have devoted to a consideration of the proposals embodied in this Measure, who can say specifically and definitely how much is to pass to the wage earners as the result of this Measure. It may well be that nothing will pass to the wage earners. The hon. Member spoke of added employment——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment which is before the Committee.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am following in the trail that has been set me by other hon. Members.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It must not be followed too far.

Mr. SHINWELL: I do not propose to follow it more than a few paces now. I will content myself with these few observations First, there is no evidence whatever to show that the relief will pass to the wage earning classes. That is purely hypothetical. Secondly, there has been no clear line of demarcation laid down in any of the speeches we have heard from the opposite bench in regard to what is purely a productive industry and what is purely a distributive industry. Upon that head we are entitled to definite information. Lastly, I want seriously to suggest to the right hon.
Gentleman that it is impossible for him to ignore the representations that have been made to every Member of the House by the retail distributors of this country. If he believes that rates are a burden upon industry, and are a burden upon productive and distributive industries, then, whatever measure of relief is afforded, ought to be afforded without distinction. It certainly should not be afforded to prosperous industries while the distributive industries, which are certainly more in need of it than brewers and others of that kind, are deprived of it.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I want to say a few words with reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley), because he is, in one way, interested in a particular class in which I am also deeply interested. I am perfectly prepared to go among the railwaymen of York and demonstrate to them that this Bill will be a direct advantage to them. I shall be prepared to meet anyone who desires to challenge that statement. The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness poured a great deal of contempt, in a perfectly pleasing and Parliamentary way, upon my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). I desire to associate myself entirely with the hon. Member for Grimsby. I believe that, although the retail trader and the small distributive trader will not receive under this Measure direct relief, the relief which will come to the productive industries will very soon find its way into the coffers of the retail traders. The whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness assumed that great industries in this country were carried on by means of individual large capitalists. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the great industries are carried on by capital which is subscribed, not by a few large people, but by a multitude of small capitalists.

Mr. BROMLEY: If the hon. Gentleman's contention is correct, will he tell me whether it is the small people with the small capital that over-subscribed for these new industries that are put up by someone who has got in on the ground floor, or by the well-to-do-people?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that this discussion is getting a little off the mark. It is true that on this Amendment it is open to discuss whether the small industries should be cut out or not, but the discussion is going wider than it should do.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I bow to that decision. I have no desire to pursue the argument further, as I am only attempting to answer the hon. Member for Barrow, who is interested in a particular industry in which I also happen to be particularly interested. His contention was incorrect in two respects, I think. He was incorrect in saying that the advantage would all go to large capitalists. I contend that the advantage will go to all who are engaged in productive industry, whether they are large capitalists or small capitalists or whether they are, as most of them are, industrial workers. The second point is that the advantage which goes directly and immediately to productive industries will very soon filter down to those retail distributors for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby was speaking.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In a very few words I wish to raise a point of considerable substance with which I hope the Minister of Health will be kind enough to deal. I do not know under which part of this Clause the industrial establishments of the Government fall. I take it they may fall under paragraph (f), but there is no direct reference to them in the Bill, and naturally they are very anxious to know what their fate is going to be. The Government do not pay rates; the Government make a contribution in lieu of rates and are not compelled by law either to make that contribution or to bring their industrial establishments under this Bill. It appears to me that the industrial establishments of the Government are going to be at a great disadvantage under the Bill, because the concession to private shipbuilding firms is a very considerable one. They are to be relieved of three quarters of their rates, but in the case of the Government the transaction will be a transfer from one pocket to another, and the cost of maintaining their dockyards will be exactly the same whether they get the relief or whether they do not. Whereas private shipbuilding firms in competition with Government yards will get what is
virtually a cheque for three-quarters of their rates, the dockyards will not be in the same advantageous position; their costs of production will be maintained, while those of the private shipbuilding firms will be reduced. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is considerable disquietude in the dockyard and arsenal towns, and we would like to know where we stand. As far as I can see, the position is as I have defined it, but certainly the properties are not mentioned in this Bill, and I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us exactly where we stand.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would say, in reply to the hon. Member, that really his question does not arise on this Bill at all. This is not a Bill which of itself gives any relief to anybody; this is merely a Bill which is to provide for the classification of certain properties in the valuation lists for the purpose of being dealt with in a later Bill. The point which he has raised is, therefore, not really appropriate upon this Bill, but will properly be dealt with when we come to give the relief in a later Bill.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: But this Bill defines what an industrial hereditament is, and is the whole basis on which the relief will be given. I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered what the position of the Crown properties will be? Presumably he has considered it, seeing that he has mentioned it in the White Paper.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course it has been considered, but I repeat that it is not really appropriate to deal with it on this particular Bill, because it does not matter whether a Government property is an industrial hereditament or not; it must be dealt with in some other way than by putting it in the valuation list, seeing that it is not rated. Therefore, I can only repeat that the matter is one which will have to be dealt with in a later Bill.

Mr. PALING: I rise to deal shortly with two points on which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me some information earlier. His answer, it appears to me, shows that problems will arise between pit and pit. Broadly speaking, I think his answer was this, that where a land sales office was apart
from the pit it would not be included in the assessment and would not come in for relief. But what occurs to my mind is this. I have one pit in mind, No. 1 pit, where the land sales and the sale of coal and everything is done within the curtilage of the works, and I imagine that those premises now come under one assessment, are treated as one hereditament. I also imagine, when the time comes to look into it, that those premises will not exceed the 10 per cent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is too late. We have passed the word "mine."

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I was putting this question earlier, and Mr. Hope, who was then presiding over the Committee, promised that we should be allowed to raise this matter on this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think what was said at the time, and what was the view of the Chairman, was that the question could be raised on the definition of the word "mine."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is so. The word, "mine" has already been passed. In Sub-section (1) of the Clause it says, "and used as a mine or," and then come the words of the Amendment. The word "mine" has already been decided and we can deal now only with the question of factories or workshops and the exceptions to the definitions of them.

Mr. PALING: May I suggest that the words "as hereinafter provided" may very well affect the point that I am putting up now, namely, that these words may exclude the particular premises in connection with a mine to which I have been referring?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will be careful to relate-what he is saying about mines to any of the items under paragraphs (a) to (f);then he will be in order, but I think at present he is not doing so.

Mr. PALING: I am dealing with the distributive side of the pit, which is concerned with the sale and the distribution of coal. I think there may be a fight over these matters, and it is because I
am afraid the words to which I have referred will exclude these premises at certain pits and not at others that I am raising this point now. I have dealt with the case of what I have called pit No.1, and I think I showed there that there would be some relief. The second case is that of a colliery which has its land sales department, perhaps, a mile away from the pit, though both the colliery and the land sales department are under one local authority. I imagine that both are included in the one assessment now, that they are treated as one hereditament at the present time; but my point is that when the position at this second pit is being considered the Revenue officer will come in and say, "But these buildings are separate and apart from the pit," and I feel they will be disqualified under one of these paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f). I do not know which will win, but I am pretty sure there is going to be trouble at that pit as to whether those premises shall be included in the hereditament which is going to receive relief from rates. Then there is a third colliery where the pit itself is under one local authority and the land sales office is two miles away, and is under another local authority. I think I shall be right in saying that there are two separate assessments in that case, and that they pay separately, and I do not think there will be much difficulty for the Revenue officer to claim that they must be treated as two assessments.
This is what is then going to occur. The first pit will get the whole of the relief, without any qualification, merely because the whole of the premises are within the precincts of the pit. In the case of the second pit it is going to be doubtful, and the people responsible and the Revenue officer are going to fall out, and I do not know how the point will be decided. In the third case the point is not doubtful; it will be decided against the pit. But this third pit is performing precisely the same work as the other two pits, and the owners of it will say, "Why should No. 1 pit get the relief and we do not?" I can see that that is what will occur, and I do not know what will be the end of it. This is one of the conundrums which will have to be settled.
The last point I wish to make is in regard to what the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) said about wages. He said a part of the benefit of this relief would come back in the shape of wages. In the case of mines I am not so sure that it will come back in wages to the working men. There is a deficiency on the working of the mines totalling about £25,000,000. I was reading only this morning that in one of the ascertainment areas the ascertainment for the month has shown 9.9 per cent. on the basis rates. The minimum wage is 36s. If this relief in rates goes to the pits while the industry remains in its present condition—and there is no possibility at the moment of its getting much better—the whole of it will go to the owners to make up the difference between what is the deficiency in the ascertainment and the minimum wage, and the miner will not get anything. And if even it made more than the minimum wage, the miner would get nothing out of it, because it would merely go to pay part of the deficiency of £25,000,000 which has already accumulated, and go into the mineowners' pockets. These are points which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep in mind and try to elucidate at some future period.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I wish to raise a point arising out of the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) raised the question of the Royal dockyards and said that while they were to get no relief private shipbuilding establishments would receive relief to the extent of about 75 per cent. of their rates. If the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields is correct, the relief is not going to be 75 per cent., but something less perhaps than 25 per cent. I would like the Minister to give his attention to this point, because the Parliamentary Secretary has thrown a bomb amongst us this afternoon. He said that a factory or workshop means neither more nor less than a factory or workshop under the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, and succeeding Acts. If that interpretation is to be applied in the case of assessments under this Clause and the next Clause, what relief
are shipyards and engineering shops going to get? There are four shipyards in my division. What does that interpretation mean? It means, first of all, that you have the drawing offices outside the provisions of Clause 3, and you have the commercial offices, the time offices, the model loft, the riggers' and equipment loft and the general store all excepted from the provisions of Clause 3 and Clause 4. That is what the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary means, because those places are not subject to inspection under the Factory and Workshops Act. The Parliamentary Secretary said that everyone knows what a factory or workshop is, that it is where a factory inspector goes. The factory inspector is not concerned with all parts of shipyards, and if that interpretation

stands good then they will not get 75 per cent. relief but something less than 25 per cent. I think it is time the right hon. Gentleman cleared up that point, because the Parliamentary Secretary has said there is a clear-cut definition, and that it is the same as in the Factory and Workshops Acts. In those Acts it is laid down that only those parts of the factory which are used for the constructive processes are affected. It is very essential that the right hon. Gentleman should clear this up under Clause 3 before we go on to Clause 4.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 140.

Division No. 239.]
AYES.
[7.2 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurst, Gerald B.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark


Bennett, A. J.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bethel, A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Betterton, Henry B.
Ellis, R. G.
Jephcott, A. R.


Bevan, S. J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fielden, E. B.
Lamb, J. O.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lane fox, col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Brass, Captain W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillp


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Long, Major Eric


Briggs, J. Harold
Ganzonl, Sir John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gates, Percy
Lumley, L. R.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Goff Sir Park
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Grace, John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Burman, J. B.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
MacIntyre, Ian


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
McLean, Major A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macmillan, Captain H.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Campbell, E. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Margesson, Captain D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hammersley, S. S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Chapman, Sir S.
Harland, A.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Christie, J. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Haslam, Henry C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Clarry, Reginald George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Handerson, Capt. ft. R. (Oxf'd, Hanley)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cope, Major Sir William
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir s. J. G.
Nuttall, Ellis


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Oakley, T.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Savery, S. S.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Perring, Sir William George
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Warrender, Sir Victor


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Shepperson, E. W.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Skelton, A. N.
Wells, S. R.


Preston, William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Radford, E. A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Raine, Sir Walter
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Streatfeild, Captain S. R
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rentoul, G. S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Withers, John James


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wolmer, Viscount


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Womersley, W. J.


Ropner, Major L.
Templeton, W. P.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Salmon, Major I.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Waddington, R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgen (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Tomlinson, R. P.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Wiggins, William Martin


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Riley, Ben



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O. (W. Bromwich)
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Fenby.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, after the second word "hereditament," to insert the words:
the business carried on in which yielded or may yield profits or gains within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and any
enactments amending the same, in the last year preceding the valuation in respect of which the profits or gains of such business or of the occupier of such hereditament may be or may have been ordinarily calculated for the purpose of that Act at a rate exceeding seven per cent. upon the capital actually employed in such business.
I am afraid I shall not be able in the remaining 20 minutes to say all that I intended to say. That the discussion is limited to 20 minutes is clear evidence that the Opposition were right in asking for five or six days on this Bill. We have only discussed four out of all the Amendments on this Clause. This Amendment ought to commend itself to the Parliamentary Secretary, because his invariable reply to all the other Amendments proposed has been to accuse us, when we have taken the method of including that which is excluded from the Bill, of dissipating the relief. He has advanced that argument time after time, until the word "dissipation" is a familiar spirit. In this case we have no "dissipators." This Amendment is intended to do what he has been arguing for, namely, to concentrate the relief where it is most needed. If passed, it will give the Minister some millions of money, instead of giving it to great prosperous firms. I have gone through the investment list of the Stock Exchange and have drawn up a list of 40 firms which have paid dividends in the last year ranging from 1 2 to 70 per cent. The effect of my Amendment would be that the relief, notwithstanding that these firms come within the definition already decided upon in the Bill, would not go to those firms. That would leave the Minister free to concentrate the relief where we have been trying to get it, namely, in the necessitous areas and for the relief of the small men. In this case we are turning back on the Minister his own argument that the relief should be concentrated.
I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, though not necessarily in these terms. It is drafted for the purpose of raising the

issue, because we think it a monstrous thing that £6,000,000, £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 of this relief—nobody knows how much—should go to prosperous firms. This Amendment will prevent the great prosperous brewers, the prosperous silk factories, the great tobacco firms and the other monopolies now paying big dividends from getting relief which would be much better spent in trying to carry out the expressed intentions of the Minister, than if dissipated by being paid to these prosperous industries. I shall refrain from saying any more because of the limitation of time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the Committee will expect me to spend many moments discussing what is so obviously an absurd Amendment. We have already discussed and rejected the idea that the relief under this Bill should be distributed in a way that discriminates between those industries which are making a profit and those which are not. I need not dwell upon the absurdity of taking a particular year for this purpose, but the effect of such a proposal as that which is contemplated in this Amendment would be to put a premium upon inefficiency. There might be two businesses, one of which was making a profit exceeding 7 per cent., and another business from neglect, mismanagement or inefficiency of some kind might have allowed the profit to drop below 7 per cent. The latter business would receive the relief, and the other would have to pay for it. That proposition is so absurd that I ant not going to spend any more time discussing it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 238.

Division No. 240.]
AYES.
[7.17 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buchanan, G.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cape, Thomas
Gardner, J. P.


Ammon, Charles George
Charleton, H. C.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, Joseph


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gillett, George M.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Connolly, M.
Gosling, Harry


Barnes, A.
Cove, W. G.
Greenall, T.


Barr, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Batey, Joseph
Crawfurd, H. E.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bondfield, Margaret
Dalton, Hugh
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Day, Harry
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Briant, Frank
Dennison, R.
Groves, T.


Broad, F. A.
Duncan, C.
Grundy, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Dunnico, H.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Bromley, J.
Edge, Sir William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney A Shetland)


Hardie, George D.
Montague, Frederick
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Harney, E. A.
Murnin, H.
Snell, Harry


Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold
Stamford, T. W.


Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry
Stephen, Campbell


Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Thurtie, Ernest


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Potts, John S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Townend, A. E.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben
Varley, Frank B.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Ritson, J.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Kelly, W. T.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wellock, Wilfred


Kennedy, T.
Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Westwood, J.


Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lawrence, Susan
Scurr, John
Whiteley, W.


Lawson, John James
Sexton, James
Wiggins, William Martin


Lindley, F. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


MacLaren, Andrew
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Windsor, Walter


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wright, W.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


March, S.
Smillie, Robert



Maxton, James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Mr. Fenby and Mr. Ernest Brown.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Colman, N. C. D.
Hartington, Marquess of


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Haslam, Henry C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cooper, A. Duff
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Astor, Viscountess
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Atholl, Duchess of
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bennett, A. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bethel, A.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bevan, S. J.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ellis, R. G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Iveagh, Countess of


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Brass, Captain W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jephcott, A. R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Briggs, J. Harold
Fielden, E. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lamb, J. O


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Burman, J. B.
Gates, Percy
Lister, Cunliffe., Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Goff, Sir Park
Loder, J. de V.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grace, John
Long, Major Eric


Campbell, E. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Carver, Major W. H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lumley, L. R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (Wth's'w,E)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macintyre, I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hacking, Douglas H.
McLean, Major A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macmillan, Captain H.


Christie, J. A.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hammersley, S. S.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harland, A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Margesson, Capt. D.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Ropner, Major L.
Waddington, R.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Salmon, Major I.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Nelson, Sir Frank
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Watts, Sir Thomas


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wells, S. R.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sanderson, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Datrymple.


Nuttall, Ellis
Savery, S. S.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Oakley, T.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shepperson, E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Skelton, A. N.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Withers, John James


Perring, Sir William George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, W. J.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, E. (Chesfr, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Preston, William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.



Radford, E. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Raine, Sir Walter
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Major Sir William Cope and Mr. Penny.


Ramsden, E.
Tasker, R. Inigo.



Rawson, Sir Cooper
Templeton, W. P.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, after the word "workshop," to insert the words:
for the manufacture wholly or partly of any article which, if imported into this country, would be subject to a duty of Customs, and does not include a hereditament occupied and used as a factory or workshop.
Owing to the limitation of time under the guillotine, it will be impossible for me properly to discuss this Amendment. This is a proposal to exclude from the operation of the proposed relief all that long list of industries which have been protected in one way or another. If there be a case for helping industries under this scheme, I think it is reasonable to say that, at any rate, we should not help those industries which have been safeguarded. Month by month we get a list of new industries which, under the Safeguarding procedure, are given protection, and our position is that some of the greatest and most important industries in this country, like the iron and steel trade, under the restrictions imposed by the Prime Minister and the Government, cannot obtain any assistance, while under this Bill all those other

industries which have been protected under the Safeguarding procedure are now, in addition to that, to receive derating on precisely the same conditions as all other industries in the Kingdom. [Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members, if they want to carry on their conversation, not to do it so loudly.

Mr. GREENWOOD: If it be true that the effect of the Safeguarding procedure has been to give a new lease of life to the industry safeguarded, then it will not be any hardship to exclude from the operation of this Bill a particular group of prosperous industries. We have been told that the Government do not desire to dissipate the help which they propose to give. If that be so, then I think the Government might exclude from the operation of this Measure the safeguarded industries.

Question put, "That those words be-there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 254.

Division No. 241.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barr, J.
Bromley, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Batey, Joseph
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bondfield, Margaret
Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)


Ammon, Charles George
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Buchanan, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Briant, Frank
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Broad, F. A.
Cape, Thomas


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bromfield, William
Charleton, H. C.


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Connolly, M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cove, W. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shinwell, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Day, Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smillie, Robert


Dennison, R.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Duncan, C.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighlay)


Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lindley, F. W.
Snall, Harry


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Livingstone, A. M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Fenby, T. D
Lunn, William
Stamford, T. W.


Gardner, J. P.
MacLaren, Andrew
Stephen, Campbell


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Stewart, I. (St. Rollox)


Gibbins, Joseph
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gosling, Harry
March, S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Greenall, T.
Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Tomlinson, R. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Townend, A. E.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Naylor, T. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Varley, Frank B.


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Viant, S. P.


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wellock, Wilfred


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
Westwood, J.


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghlon-le-Spring)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Harney, E. A.
Riley, Ben
Whiteley, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.
Wiggins, William Martin


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayes, John Henry
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Wright, W.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scrymgeour, E.



Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Albery, Irving James
Campbell, E. T.
Ellis, R. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Asthury, Lieut-Commander F. W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Astor, Viscountess
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fade, Sir Bertram G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fielden, E. B.


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Sir S
Ford, Sir P. J.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Forrest, W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Christie, J. A.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bennett, A. J.
Clarry, Reginald George
Gates, Percy


Bethel, A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Betterton, Henry B.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Goff, Sir Park


Bevan, S. J.
Colman, N. C. D.
Grace, John


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Couper, J. B.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Brass, Captain W.
Cuiverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Curzon Captain Viscount
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hammersley, S. S.


Briggs, J. Harold
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harland, A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hartington, Marquess of


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Haslam, Henry C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Buckingham Sir H.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Burman, J. B.
Duckworth, John
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Meller, R. J.
Shepperson, E. W.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Skelton, A. N.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smithers, Waldron


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Templeton, W. P.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Nuttall, Ellis
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Oakley, T.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Iveagh, Countess of
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Jephcott, A. R.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waddington, R.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Perring, Sir William George
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lamb, J. Q.
Preston, William
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Radford, E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Raine, Sir Waiter
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Loder, J. de V.
Ramsden, E.
Williams, Com- C. (Devon, Torquay)


Long, Major Eric
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lougher, Lewis
Rentoul, G. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Windsor, Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lumley, L. R.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Withers, John James


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ropner, Major L.
Wolmer, Viscount


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Macintyre, Ian
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wragg, Herbert


Macmillan, Captain H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.



Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sanderson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Margesson, Captain D.
Savery, S. S.
Major Sir William Cope and Mr.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Penny.

It bring after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 28th- June, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting and on

an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 141.

Division No. 242.]
AYES.
[7.39 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Ainsworth, Lieut-Col. Charles
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Albery, Irving James
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Chapman, Sir S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brass, Captain W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Christie, J. A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Astor, Viscountess
Brings, J. Harold
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Briscoe, Richard George
Clarry, Reginald George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Balniel, Lord
Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Colman, N. C. P.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cooper, A. Duff


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Burman, J. B.
Cope, Major Sir William


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Couper, J. B.


Bennett, A. J.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Bethel, A.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Campbell, E. T.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Bevan, S. J.
Carver, Major W. H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton,W.)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cecil, Rt. Hon, Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Daikelth, Earl of


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ramsden, E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rentoul, G. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Iveagh, Countess of
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Dawson, Sir Philip
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jephcott, A. R.
Ropner, Major L.


Duckworth, John
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Salmon, Major I.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Samuel (W'dswortb, Putney.)


Ellis, R. G.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Savery, S. S.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Loder, J. de V.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Faile, Sir Bertram G.
Long, Major Eric
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Laugher, Lewis
Shepperson, E. W.


Fielden, E. B.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Skelton, A. N.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Slaney, Major p. Kenyon


Forrest, W.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smithers, Waldron


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Ganzonl, Sir John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Gates, Percy
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Goff, Sir Park
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grace, John
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Templeton, W. P.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w,E)
Margesson, Captain D.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meller, R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Waddington, R.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hammersley, S. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harland, A.
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hartington, Marquess of
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivlan
Nuttall, Ellis
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Oakley, T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Withers, John James


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Womersley, W. J.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, E. (Chester, Staiy'b'ge & Hyde)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perring, Sir William George
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wragg, Herbert


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Preston, William



Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)
Price, Major C. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hume, Sir G. H.
Radford, E. A.
Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Raine, Sir Walter



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cape, Thomas
Gibbins, Joseph


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Charleton, H. C.
Gillett, George M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cluse, W. S.
Gosling, Harry


Ammon, Charles George
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Greenall, T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Connolly, M.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Barr, J.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Groves, T.


Bondfield, Margaret
Day, Harry
Grundy, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dennison, R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Briant, Frank
Duncan, C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Broad, F. A.
Dunnico, H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Bromfield, William
Edge, Sir William
Hardie, George D.


Bromley, J.
Edwards C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Harney, E. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Harris, Percy A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Fenby, T. D.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Buchanan, G
Gardner, J. P.
Hayday, Arthur


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Hayes, John Henry




Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oliver, George Harold
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pailn, John Henry
Stamford, T. W.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stephen, Campbell


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Jonkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Riley, Ben
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ritson, J.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Townend, A. E.


Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. G. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Kennedy, T.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Varley, Frank B.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Viant, S. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lawrence, Susan
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonnda)


Lawson, John James
Scrymgeour, E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lindley, F. W.
Scurr, John
Westwood, J.


Livingstone, A. M.
Sexton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Whiteley, W.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wiggins, William Martin


MacLaren, Andrew
Shinwell, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Windsor, Walter


March, S.
Smillie, Robert
Wright, W.


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhthe)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Montague, Frederick
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)



Murnin, H.
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Naylor, T. E.
Snell, Harry
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.

CLAUSE 4.—(Entries in valuation lists as to industrial hereditaments.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line S7, after the word "Where" insert the words "the net annual value of a hereditament

does not exceed fifty pounds or where"—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 137.

Division No. 243.]
AYES.
[7.48 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Caine, Gordon Hall
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Albery, Irving James
Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S
Carver, Major W. H.
Ellis, R. G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Astor, Viscountess
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fielden, E. B.


Bainlel, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Forrest, W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Christie, J. A.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bennett, A. J.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Bethel, A.
Clarry, Reginald George
Gates, Percy


Betterton, Henry B.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bevan, S. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D
Goff, Sir Park


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Colman, N. C. D.
Grace, John


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R. (Skipton)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cope, Major Sir William
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Couper, J. B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Grotrlan, H. Brent


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hall, Lieut, Col. Sir F. (Duiwich)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hammersley, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harland, A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hartington, Marquess of


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Haslam, Henry C.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Burman, J. B.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Duckworth, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Holt, Captain H. P.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shepperson, E. W.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Skelton, A. N.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyor


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Smithers, Waldron


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hurst, Gerald B.
Nuttall, Eills
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Oakley, T.
Templeton, W. P.


Iveagh, Countess of
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Jephcott, A. R.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Perring, Sir William George
Waddington, R.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lamb, J. Q.
Preston, William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Price, Major C. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Loder, J. de V.
Raine, Sir Walter
Watts, Sir Thomas


Long, Major Eric
Ramsden, E.
Wells, S. R.


Lougher, Lewis
Rawson, Sir Cooper
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rentoul, G. S.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lumley, L. R.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ropner, Major L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macintyre, Ian
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Withers, John James


McLean, Major A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wolmer, Viscount


Macmillan, Captain H.
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


MacRobert, Alexander M
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Makins, Brigadier, General E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wragg, Herbert


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Margesson, Capt. D.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank



Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Savery, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Meller, R. J
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gibbins, Joseph
Livingstone, A. M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gosling, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Ammon, Charles George
Greenall, T.
MacLaren, Andrew


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Raker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
March, S.


Barnes, A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Barr, J.
Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Naylor, T. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold


Briant, Frank
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Palin, John Henry


Broad, F. A.
Hardle, George D.
Paling, W.


Bromfield, William
Harney, E. A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bromley, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ponsonby, Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Riley, Ben


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Connolly, M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Cove, W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Crawford, H. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scrymgeour, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scurr, John


Day, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James


Dennison, R.
Kelly, W. T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Duncan, C.
Kennedy, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dunnico, H.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shinwell, E


Edge, Sir William
Kirkwood, D
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawrence, Susan
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Fenby, T. D.
Lawson, John James
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Gardner, J. P.
Lindley, F. W.
Smillie, Robert




Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rothernithe)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wiggins, William Martin


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Tomlinson, R. P.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snell, Harry
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Varley, Frank B.
Windsor, Walter


Stamford, T. W.
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Stephen, Campbell
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)



Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wellock, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Westwood, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charles


Thurtle, Ernest
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Edwards.

CLAUSE 5.—(Definition of freight-transport hereditaments.)

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:
(iii) a railway or tramway attached to an industrial hereditament for purposes ancillary thereto and used primarily for the transport of minerals and/or produce from the mine or factory to a railway, canal, dock, or shipping place.
This Amendment is of importance to the coal trade, particularly in Durham and Northumberland. While the Bill seeks to give a relief to productive industries of three-quarters of their local rates, it also seeks to relieve railways, docks and canals of three-quarters of their local rates in order that they may, as far as the relief permits, pass it on in the charges on coal and coke and other requirements of the productive industries. A serious anomaly arises in this respect, particularly in Durham and Northumberland. While this rebate or relief is given to railways of a public and semi-public character, no relief is given either under Clause 3 or under Clause 5 to the privately-owned railways which are distinctly in touch with various collieries. The importance of this matter will be realised by the Committee when I tell them that in Durham and Northumberland alone 16,000,000 tons of coal are conveyed over private lines with direct connections between the collieries and the points of shipment and these will be excluded from any benefit or relief under this Bill. In the definition of "industrial hereditament" I find that the railways in connection with these pits or collieries will be excluded, and as far as relief is given generally in connection with railways they will be prevented from participating. They will be at a total disadvantage.
8.0 p.m.
It will be a very serious thing, not only in regard to the interests of one colliery or of a few collieries but in regard to the interests of the great coal trade, if the
products of these pits are excluded from the benefits of the Bill. It might be suggested that it might be possible to treat these lines as an hereditament, but even then I do not think the relief would be anything like adequate in view of the passing of this great quantity of coal over these privately-owned railways. If the Committee will permit me, I will give a concrete instance. There are three collieries in Durham contiguous to each other. Two of them run over partly privately-owned lines and the other runs over a privately-owned line. Two of the collieries will participate in the benefits of the Bill, and the third colliery will be entirely excluded. I do not know that I need labour the point any further. It seems so palpable and so patent that I have great confidence in submitting this Amendment to the Committee, and I sincerely trust that the Minister will look at it sympathetically and will give careful consideration to it as he generally does to these questions, and, if possible, give the relief which I seek through this Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: My hon. Friend, as he always does, has stated his case with great fairness and has, I think, put-forward every possible reason that can be advanced for the proposition which is now before the Committee. Of course, it-is designed to bring within the definition of a freight transport hereditament a private railway or tramway used only for the conveyance of the owner's traffic. I must say at once- that the de-rating of these lines as freight transport hereditaments would be contrary to the framework of the Bill. I am very much afraid that it would lead to complications in the Bill which has to follow in the autumn and provide for the passing on to users of relief on freight transport hereditaments. The attempt to bring the private railway into the railway pool would, I am afraid, lead to very undesirable complications. What I will say to my hon. Friend—and it must be quite clear that
I am not giving any undertaking—is that I will look into this matter, and so will my right hon. Friend, more particularly, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, between now and the Report stage, in order to see if any of the objections—which at the moment are very difficult to see—can be overcome. I cannot go further than that. No doubt my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the undertaking which I have given. I need hardly say to him and to hon. Members who may be associated with this Amendment, that any further evidence or arguments that can be put forward between now and the Report stage will be gladly considered by my right hon. Friend. I wish I could go further than that, but that is the position of my right hon. Friend at the moment. I hope that under the circumstances my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Are we to understand from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that because a certain length of railway is owned by a railway company relief will be granted for the whole length. I have an instance in mind where a railway company serves a number of collieries. There is a private line on land belonging to the colliery company, and, for the sake of convenience and the better control and productiveness of the colliery, the colliery company have erected a large number of what are called sidings. They run the whole of their coal from a group of collieries for a distance of nearly three miles to the railway owned by the Great Western Railway Company. If that private line was in the hands of the Great Western Railway Company, that company would get relief to the extent of 75 per cent. of their rates and this would be handed over to the colliery company. But because this particular section is privately-owned, the colliery company are not going to get any relief. The Parliamentary Secretary says that there are some difficulties in the way. I fail to understand where the difficulties are that prevent a private length of railway serving a group of collieries being treated in precisely the same way as though it were owned by the Great Western Railway Company.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: I think those of us who were associated in putting
down this Amendment appreciate very much the action of the Parliamentary Secretary in saying that he will give it consideration. I know that it bristles with difficulties, but at the same time I would like to point out to him, that if we do not do something to remedy the state of affairs, it will create a very great injustice to the colliery company who happens to own a railway. After all, what are the factors that enter into the cost of carriage on the railway? They are the original cost of construction of the railways, wayleaves, annual maintenance and rates. Under this Bill the public railway is going to be relieved of a large portion of those charges and that is going to be handed over to any colliery company who sends their coal over that particular railway. You are going to get the position of two collieries, possibly neighbours, one sending its coal over a public railway and getting lower rates and the other sending its coal over its own railway and having to pay higher rates. I think that some of the difficulty may possibly have arisen through the fact that in many parts of the country—at any rate, in my part—private railways and private shipping facilities are not separately assessed. I gather that the effect of Clause 3 in this Bill will be that in future railways and shipping facilities will be separately assessed. The colliery company will be relieved of rates on its colliery undertaking, on its mines and shops, but it will have to pay full rates on that portion of its undertaking assessed as railway and shipping facilities. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman realises the unfortunate position in which the colliery company is put very largely through historical reasons, namely, that it had to build private railways long before the Railway Act was brought in, he will see that there are really very serious grounds for this Amendment and, as he has suggested, for trying to meet us. I am sure we are very grateful indeed for the promise he has made.

Mr. HARNEY: It seems to me that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman is really no answer to this Amendment. It is quite obvious that the first two Sub-sections refer only to public light railways. As I understand the position, it is this. Suppose you have a colliery similar to those dealt with in this Amendment,
carrying coal up to the railway that is called a public railway, the colliery-owner will find that he gets a reduction of his rates in respect of his colliery, but that he gets no benefit whatever in respect of that portion of the transport of coal between his colliery and the public railway. I cannot for the life of me see why, in the interests of production, the right hon. Gentleman cannot say: "Not only will we allow a rebate to the colliery of three-quarters of the rates, but we will also give the colliery the benefit of three-quarters reduction upon the transport of goods through to their destination."

Mr. WHITELEY: I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the situation in connection with inland coal mines, especially as he made a promise to take this matter into consideration. There is a large number of inland collieries possessing private lines extending for a good many miles which are used for the transport of coal. If there is going to be ease given to production it is essential, when the right hon. Gentleman is considering the proposals in this Amendment, that he should give at least some little assistance in this direction. We have in one instance a colliery with a privately-owned line that extends from a place called Hetton right down to Sunderland. The line is something like nine or 10 miles in length and the whole use to which that line is put is the transit of coal. If this position is not taken into consideration, the right hon. Gentleman will put collieries of this type into a far worse position than the collieries near the coast. The collieries near the coast have practically no transport at all. They simply put their coal on to the ships at the docks, and they have a tremendous advantage over the inland colliery which has many miles of private lines to lay down in order to transport coal to the seaports. I sincerely trust that in taking this matter into consideration the right hon. Gentleman will have regard to the position of inland collieries and will place them in something like an equal position to other collieries.

Mr. BARKER: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has realised the importance of this Amendment. He has given us a very shaky promise with regard
to it. He is afraid to adopt the Amendment, and he only says that he will consider it. The Amendment is of very great importance, and it affects a great many collieries and I should like to have some further information with reference to this matter. I take it that a railway siding is part of the colliery and will be derated, but I should like an assurance on that point. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say definitely that colliery sidings are part of the colliery and will, accordingly, be de-rated? If not, a very serious injustice will be done and there will be a very great anomaly created. I have in my mind a colliery which is three-quarters of a mile from a railway station. This colliery sends its coal to the railway sidings by its own private railway. Are we to understand that rates are to be levied upon the three-quarters of a mile of private railway because it belongs to the colliery company and not to a railway company? That is surely an anomaly that cannot be overlooked. In drafting this intricate Bill I think this detail has been overlooked. We desire something more than a mere empty assurance that the matter will be looked into. We want a definite promise from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will realise the gravity of the position and that he will rectify it, either by accepting the Amendment or by putting the matter right on the Report stage of the Bill.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I think everybody is agreed that if any industry requires relief, it is the mining industry, and surely that should be taken into consideration, in addition to the anomaly of railways, getting something which private companies cannot get. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the position of the mines, the mincowners and the miners, and to realise that they need more assistance probably than any other industry in the country. We are agreed that if what we desire can be done, it will be done, and that the Parliamentary Secretary will get his right hon. Friend to acquiesce in our proposal.

Mr. KELLY: I agree as to the difficulty in regard to the mining position, which has been expressed sufficiently to impress itself upon the mind of the right hon. Gentleman; but I would point out that this matter extends much further
than the mines. It will create a very-great difference between, say, the railway shops and the engineering shops. The railway shops will have the railway lines belonging to the company running into their shops with the relief that comes, whereas the big engineering shops, particularly those where the railway company has not been enterprising enough in the past to run their own lines into the works, and where the particular company has had to construct its own lines, will be at a disadvantage in not securing the relief of 75 per cent. This question requires something more than an assurance that it will have consideration. I agree that it bristles with difficulties. It applies not only to the engineering trade but to the chemical trade, where the railway companies have not been enterprising enough, and the owners of the chemical works have constructed their own lines and purchased locomotives which run upon those lines. The same argument applies to other industries which could be enumerated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to this matter and see that companies are not placed at a disadvantage where the railway company has not been enterprising enough to run their own lines to the works.

Mr. LAWSON: This matter is so important that I do not think the promise given by the Parliamentary Secretary is sufficient. It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary and those who advise him and the Minister of Health must not have realised the overwhelming importance of the matter, or they could have done none other than assent to this proposal. In the north-west part of Durham County there is a great network of private railways bringing coal from the pits to the railways, and on the other side of the county there is a long network of private railways which run down to the Tyne docks, some for long distances and some for short distances. It is no exaggeration to say that as far as the Durham coalfield is concerned, this question of subsidising the railways which are connected with the mines is to the coal companies at least as important from the point of view of getting relief as it is that relief should be given to the public railways. The cost of carrying coal over these private railways is, at least, as great as the cost of
carriage over the public railways. I do not know how far the colliery companies have realised that these branch railways will be outside the calculations on which relief will be granted, but I am certain that the whole weight of the mining industry, particularly on the side of the owners, will make the Government consider this matter very seriously. It is such an injustice to leave these branch railways outside the calculation for purposes of this Bill, that it is not good enough to give us a promise. If he does not accept the Amendment, I suggest that we should go to a Division in order to emphasise its importance.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think the hon. Member need take that drastic step, so far as the Government are concerned. He knows very well, as one who has occupied a position in a Government, that while a matter may appear very easy on the face of it, there are a good many difficulties of an administrative character. I made a careful statement, because I did not want to raise undue hopes or to-promise anything that I could not perform; but I have heard the expressions of opinion from all parts of the Committee, and I can assure hon. Members that those views will be taken into consideration. Hon. Members will realise the difficulties of the position when I mention that the money which will be available in cases of this kind does not go to the particular railway but goes into-a pool, and, while it is not very difficult to arrive at the amount of money that is to go into the pool in respect of particular railways, it is more difficult when we have to determine how the money is to go from the pool and the particular application which has to be made in the circumstances of the particular railways. I can assure hon. Members that we do appreciate the point, and that this matter shall be reconsidered between now and the Report stage.

Mr. R. HUDSON: Am I right in assuming that in the case of canals or docks there is no distinction whether they are privately owned, or not?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider this point? There may be two collieries both 15 miles from the seaport. One has 12 miles of publicly-owned railway over which to transport its goods, and the other has 15 miles. In the one case the
colliery has three or four miles of privately-owned lines, and it would mean that the money coming in relief out of the "pool" to this colliery would not be on the same level as the relief given in the other place. As a matter of justice each colliery should reap the same reward from relief of rates. It is not merely a question of money but a question of the money being meted out to groups of collieries on the same level.

Sir K. WOOD: I thought of that, and it is one of the points which will have to be considered. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson), that matter is not on a par, because in the case of canals they have to accept public merchandise.

Mr. E. BROWN: There is another Amendment on the Order Paper on this point which brings in ropeways and tramways.

The CHAIRMAN: That matter cannot be argued now; we cannot have it over again.

Mr. BROWN: I only rose to express the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would take this wider Amendment into consideration, in which case it will obviate the necessity for my moving it.

Mr. KELLY: I should like to find out what the pool is. Does a privately owned line pay something to itself in order to pay something into the pool? I understand that the question we are discussing is whether these lines shall be relieved of 75 per cent. of rates——

Mr. AMMON: I think we could dispose of this matter if it was agreed that the question should be put down for Report stage. It would give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity of making a statement.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: Personally, I am entirely satisfied. The Committee have recognised the fundamental value of this Amendment. I do not propose to press the Parliamentary Secretary to give an absolute undertaking now, and I am perfectly prepared to accept his statement that the matter will be considered between now and Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) A hereditament occupied and used wholly or partly in connection with an undertaking for the conveyance of merchandise by road.
This is another of those little intricate problems with which the Government will have to deal. It is as intricate as the previous question. A large number of people at the present time are doing cartage work for docks and railway companies and have a portion of the warehouses as stables or garages at the various goods stations or dock companies' properties. They pay rent to the company for the use of a part of their sheds as stables or garages. They are private contractors, as it is only part of their-duty to do the cartage work for the railway or dock company. They do work for other people as well. Sometimes they have to get away from the goods station or the dock or the canal and take a hereditament close at hand, from which they do their work of carting goods for the company with which they are associated. We contend that these people, if not assisted by this relief of rates, will be at a great disadvantage as compared with the dock company or the railway company for whom they work. Already they have to pay a penalty in tile increase of the price of petrol which they use. They are really helping those who are competing with them. We are told that the railway companies will pass on this relief. They will not pass it on to the cartage agents who are doing their work.
In my Division we have five docks and live railway goods depots; and a good deal of cartage work is done to and from the railway goods station and from the docks We have also the canals where timber is unloaded, yet no relief is to be given to these people, although they are carting general merchandise which is very useful to other industries. Coke and coal too is unloaded at the wharves in my Division. Coal is brought to one wharf by barge and unloaded and to the other by railway. It is carted away to various factories in the district, but those who take the coal away from the railway siding to the factories, unless this Amendment is accepted, will get no relief for the hereditaments where they keep their
horses and vans or motor lorries. In some cases these agents have taken a part of the warehouse or shed as a garage or stable, paid rent for it, and are, of course, always at hand. In other instances, they have gone as near as possible to the docks or railway, so that they could render the assistance that is required to take goods to the various factories. I hope that the Minister will give the matter serious consideration.

Sir K. WOOD: Of course, the effect of this Amendment would be to add a new class of transport hereditament and to extend the scheme of the Bill. As the Committee know, the object in derating freight transport hereditaments is to benefit the basic industries. Hon. Members will remember the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that connection. The whole object of the relief is to benefit those basic industries which certainly require assistance. From the point of view of the objects of the Measure, this Amendment would be of no assistance whatever. The agencies that we are discussing operate on public roads, which are provided for them and upon which they pay no rates. From the point of view of relief there would be very little in it, and to bring in fresh hereditaments would destroy the principle of the scheme.

Mr. GOSLING: I was hoping that the Minister would give us some little relief. When he speaks of wanting to help the basic industries of the country he ought to keep in mind that transport as a whole is one of the most important industries of the country, and that if he is not very careful he will be breaking it up. We have seen how quickly an hon. Gentleman on the back Benches opposite volunteered to go to York to demonstate that this Bill would be an advantage. As he was talking I wondered whether, after he left York, he would go on to Hull and prove to the dockers that the Bill would also be an advantage to them. The Government will have to be very careful in their treatment of docks as against wharves, or else they will be putting these bodies into very unfair competition. If the Government give the money to the railways so that they become unfair competitors with the roads, or if they give preference to the railways as against the canals, they are going
to cut right against what they gave us a day to discuss recently and afterwards made the subject of a promise—that the whole question of transport shall be considered. It is no secret that the Government intend to put up some very important machinery for the purpose of dealing with the whole question of the transport of the country, the idea being to utilise transport to the greatest advantage of the industries of the country.
No greater disservice can be done to transport than to begin to pick out a portion of it in order to give it special treatment. Unless road transport is to be as fairly treated as railway transport, and unless canal transport and dock trnsport and river transport, including wharves, are also to be treated as fairly as the railways, we shall be getting rid of one difficulty and making for ourselves another very serious difficulty, and upsetting the whole system of transport which, as the Government realise, calls for consolidation and better use. If one section of transport is put into unfair competition with other sections, the Government will be frustrating the very object that they have in the Bill. While I would not seek to abstract a favourable answer from the right hon. Gentleman to-night, I must tell him that we shall have to follow up this question in the next phase of the Bill unless some relief is given in the direction I have indicated.

Mr. SEXTON: I have no wish to repeat what has been so very well said by my two hon. Friends. The Parliamentary Secretary says that he is anxious to assist basic industries. I would point out to him that the species of transport whose case we are advocating is part of basic industry. I leave the high roads alone, for they have already been dealt with. I confine myself to the transport contractors who live in the immediate neighbourhood and whose hereditament is in the immediate neighbourhood of the docks. They are saddled with local rates and in addition with the Petrol Duty. I could give case after case from Liverpool. The whole of the work of these contractors is the carting of raw material from the docks to the local factory. They never go on the highway at all; they never leave the environs of the city. Yet they are not to be relieved of rates and they will have to pay 4d. a gallon duty on their
petrol. The Parliamentary Secretary must see the iniquity of the whole business.

Mr. PALIN: The more we go into the details of this Bill the more difficulties arise. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman in charge will be entitled to all our sympathy before he has got through the Committee stage of the Bill, because as he casts out one devil another devil arrives. With regard to the relief of basic industries, I cannot see how he can do this if he leaves out of account any other form of transport but railways. I have said all along that for the railways to become dereliet would be a very bad proposition for the country. They are certainly entitled to some protection, but it looks to me as if they have gone to the other extreme, because, owing to the lack of imagination and stupidity of the railway companies—and they have been stupid—numbers of industries have almost been strangled. But quite a number of basic industries have prospered in spite of every obstacle placed in their way by the railway companies. I could quote numerous cases,

and they will occur to the mind of every business man, where firms have pleaded and petitioned railway companies to afford facilities so that they could send their goods by rail, but they have been refused, and they have had to build up their business on road transport. It seems to me that not only will the road transport contractors be penalised, but that particular basic industries which depend on road transport for their raw material and for their finished product are also going to be left out in the cold by this very benevolent scheme which the Government have sat up at nights for the last two or three years to bring forth, and there are going to be so many dissatisfied claimants upon their beneficence that I am afraid the next General Election is going to be decided, not by those who are grateful, but by those who have been left out in the cold and, for their protection, the Government will be wise to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 193.

Division No. 244.]
AYES.
[8.50 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palln, John Henry


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Paling, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Half, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bar[...]es, A.
Hardle, George D.
Riley, Ben


Barr, J.
Harney, E. A.
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R. Elland)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromfield, William
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Bromley, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smillie, Robert


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Cove, W. G
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kirkwood, D
Stamford, T. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Duncan, C.
Leo, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dunnico, H.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Gardner, J. P.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Glbbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gosling, Harry
Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenall, T.
Mosley, Oswald
Westwood, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Muraln, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Windsor, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Wright, W.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Frederick George


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Grace, John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Perring, Sir William George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Grotrian, H. Brent
Preston, William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bethel, A.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Radford, E. A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raine, Sir Walter


Bevan, S. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harland, A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Haslam, Henry C.
Ropner, Major L.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggies-Brlse, Lieut.-Colonel E: A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Brass, Captain W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Hunter-Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. O. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hurst, Gerald B.
Skelton, A. N.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Calne, Gordon Hall
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Campbell, E. T.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smithers, Waldron


Carver, Major W. H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jephcott, A. R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Storry-Deans, R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Knox, Sir Alfred
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Colman, N. C. D.
Loder, J. de V.
Templeton, W. P.


Cope, Major Sir William
Long, Major Eric
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Couper, J. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harmon
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lumley, L. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Waddington, R.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macintyre, Ian
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wells, S. R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Dawson, Sir Philip
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Duckworth, John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Withers, John James


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wragg, Herbert


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Yerburuh, Major Robert D. T.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Forrest, W.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Oakley, T.
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor


Gates, Percy
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Warrender.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.

The CHAIRMAN: I feel a certain difficulty with regard to the Amendment in page 5, line 32, to leave out the words
as part of a canal undertaking whereof the canal is used for the conveyance of merchandise.
If the canal is not used for the conveyance of merchandise, I hardly see how
it can be a freight-transport hereditament, but, in view of the complexity of the subject, I shall be glad of some explanation from any of the hon. Members whose names appear attached to the Amendment. On the face of it, it would appear to give relief to hereditaments that are not freight-transport hereditaments at all.

Mr. E. BROWN: The intention of the Amendment is to bring wharves within the definition of a canal, and I think that is not merely the intention but the effect of the Amendment. As I understand it, Sub-section (1, b) of Clause 5 makes canal property entitled to relief from rates subject to two conditions. The first is that it is occupied wholly or partly for canal transport purposes, and the second is that it is occupied and used as part of a canal undertaking. Unless this Amendment be made, there will be excluded from relief all hereditaments which are not part of the actual canal property, such as wharves owned by carrying companies engaged in the transport of merchandise on the canal.

Sir K. WOOD: On a point of Order. From the Government point of view, the only possible meaning that this Amendment could have would be to bring within the scope of de-rated canals, canals used for the conveyance of passengers. I am afraid it would not cover the point that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, so far as I am advised.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I wish to move the Amendment in question, and to point out that its object is to give the same facility to a canal undertaking as is possessed by a railway. At present, there is a very unfair differentiation, so far as the carrying trade is concerned, between railways and canals, and the canals are struggling to get on an equality with the railway companies. If the Ministry consider the definition with regard to a railway undertaking, they will see that it is far wider in its application than that which is included in Subsection (1, b) in regard to canals. By leaving out the words proposed to be left out in this Amendment, we shall therefore be able to get back some of the unrestricted user and the privileges which this Bill is proposing to confer in respect of canal traffic. There need be no misapprehension on the part of the Ministry with regard to our desiring to cover passenger traffic.

The CHAIRMAN: Is the right hon. and learned Member explaining or moving the Amendment? I am not yet quite satisfied that it is in order to move it.

Sir H. NIELD: I am prepared to move it if it has not been already moved by
the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown).

Mr. BROWN: I understood you to say, Mr. Hope, that you were not clear whether it was in order to move it, and I did not move it.

Sir H. NIELD: I am prepared to move it and to deal with the question at somewhat greater length on this first Amendment, as being applicable to all the others, or most of them, that follow. There is only one difference, and that is——

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the right hon. and learned Member to address himself to this point. It appears, on the face of it, that the effect of the Amendment would be to bring under the definition and relief of a freight-transport hereditament, a hereditament which, as a matter of fact, was part of a canal which was not used for the conveyance of merchandise. I do not know that there is such a canal—I should imagine not—but on the face of it that would appear to be the effect of the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Sir H. NIELD: That is not the intention of those who put the Amendment down in association with me. It is apprehended that this restriction, which we seek to remove, will exclude from relief hereditaments belonging to by-traders. There is a canal which is well known as the Grand Junction Canal, and which runs, with a variety of branches, from Birmingham to the Thames. At one part of its area it changes to another company, but they are in friendly relations with each other.

The CHAIRMAN: I do see the point, and I will admit the Amendment if the right hon. and learned Member or those who act with him will think out some words, when these are omitted, which will make it clear that this applies to hereditaments which are on the banks or in connection with canals, though not part of the undertaking of a canal company, used for the carriage of merchandise.

Miss LAWRENCE: On the point of Order. I have an Amendment designed to secure the same purpose, in page 6, line 39, which proceeds rather by extending the definition of docks to the definition of canals. If we are to debate the
point of substance now, we should decide by which method we are going to proceed, whether to extend the definition of a canal or of a dock.

The CHAIRMAN: The real difficulty arises on the words "as part of a canal undertaking," and I think it will be in order to move the omission of these words, though I think it will be necessary, if I admit that, to find some other words, either in this place or some other place, to make it quite clear that the canal in question must be used for the conveyance of merchandise.

Sir H. NIELD: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out from the word "purposes" in line 32, to the end of line 34.
I am quite willing to deal with it in that spirit, and to allow it to be negatived here with a view to an undertaking that between now and the Report stage words shall be found to carry out that intention. At present, unless we get the Amendment, there are various undertakings, companies and firms, such as carriers who have wharfside premises, that ought to have the full benefit and the privileges conferred by this Bill but which will be shut out unless these words are removed. If the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary will accept that solution of the matter, I will allow the Amendment to be negatived, subject to what my hon. Friends may have to say, on our undertaking to agree with him on such words as will carry out our intention on the Report stage.

Mr. E. BROWN: I would like to make this quite clear to the Committee. We have not only considered these wharves in connection with the railways, but also in connection with the harbours and docks, and our intention is to secure that traders who use wharves for the carrying of merchandise shall have the benefit of de-rating as well. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sail. Nield) that if the Parliamentary Secretary will meet us on the Report stage, it will not be necessary to pursue this matter now.

Sir K. WOOD: I am in a difficulty, because the Amendment on the Paper clearly does not carry out what was apparently the intention of the Members who put it down. We thought that they
were endeavouring to bring within the scope of the definition canals or inland navigation concerned only with passenger traffic. Now my right hon. and learned Friend puts another point of view. As I understand it, wharves for carrying merchandise are covered, but I would like to examine this matter. Every Member of the Committee must appreciate my position and that obviously, on a technical point of this kind, it would be difficult for me to answer immediately when the Amendment on the Paper does not carry out the intention of the hon. Members, but I quite see that the hereditament must firstly be used as part of the canal undertaking which conveys merchandise, and secondly be used wholly or partly for canal transport purposes, as defined in Sub-section (2, b) of the Clause. I know that the Committee will permit me to examine this. I cannot give an undertaking until I have had an opportunity of doing so, but I will examine it between now and the Report stage, and confer with the hon. Gentlemen as to what it is that they desire.

Mr. BROWN: This point really arises on the construction of the Minister in his speech on Second Reading, and we thought that the Bill as drafted had a narrower interpretation than he put upon it when he explained the matter of the relation of wharves to canals on Second Reading.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: May I carry a little further what the hon. Gentleman has said? On Second Reading, the Minister, dealing with the docks said:
Docks include not only the properties belonging to the statutory undertakings, but also wharves owned by private wharfingers and used for public traffic."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1928; col. 191, Vol. 218.]
There are wharves owned by private companies engaged in the transport of merchandise, which would be part of the canal undertaking in the sense that they would belong to the statutory undertakers, and therefore, in order to bring this within the principle, it is necessary to omit these words, so that some opportunity can be taken of including these wharves, which are privately owned and which fulfil the purposes of the canal undertakings, but are not part of the canal undertaking

The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to withdraw the Amendment?

Sir H. NIELD: If you please, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Miss LAWRENCE: In page 5, to leave out from the word "purposes," in line 36, to the end of line 39.

The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment really raises the same point in connection with docks. That is to say, it is a question of the words "as part of a dock undertaking," and I imagine that the Committee will be willing to defer the two questions, as they really relate to the same point.

Mr. GOSLING: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been big harbour authorities and wharfingers who wish to make arrangements, not only for a fair deal in this matter——

The CHAIRMAN: We must have a Motion before us if the hon. Gentleman desires to speak.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "purposes," in line 36, to the end of line 39.

Mr. GOSLING: I was wondering whether some promise could not he made to see that these people got a fair deal. This seems to me not the best way of doing it. It is not that they want to get more money out of the Government. Perhaps that is one of the reasons in the Parliamentary Secretary's mind for being very careful, but that is not their object. They will be quite grateful for what money they get, but what they want is to get it in the simplest possible way, and, if some arrangement could be made with these big harbour undertakers and wharfingers, it would be better for all parties and help the progress of the Bill. The great wharfingers along a river like the Thames must have some similar treatment to the docks, or it will be a very unfair arrangement. I would much rather that they made these arrangements for themselves, and perhaps the Minister would undertake to see them.

Sir K. WOOD: I need hardly tell the hon. Gentleman, whose experience is unequalled in this particular subject, that I will take into account what he has said, and if any representative bodies to which he refers desire to consult the Department between now and the Report stage, I will see that they are able to do so. We had better leave this matter in the same way as we left the last matter. I will therefore not comment upon the exact wording of this particular Amendment. It conveys a different meaning to me than it does to the hon. Members who put it on the Paper. Perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me in regard to the people whom he desires me to see.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, after the first word "the," to insert the words "volume of."
The object of this Amendment is simply to provide for the volume of business referred to in this Clause being taken as the test to decide whether a substantial portion of a dock undertaking is concerned with shipping or unshipping merchandise.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am glad that the Amendment has been moved, because as the Clause was drafted, the question could arise whether a substantial portion of the business was to be estimated on the value or on the volume.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. NIELD: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 40 to 44, inclusive.
I am proposing to delete the proviso at the end of Sub-section (1) of the Clause. It is felt by those who are concerned with this particular traffic that their offices will in all probability be valued as a separate hereditament and that they will not obtain the relief which is intended to be given under the Bill. It is not always possible to have the offices of a wharf upon the wharf or upon the premises where the goods are dealt with. In many cases it is necessary to have the offices where the whole of the business is transacted in some central part of the town. Let us take Birmingham, a city where there is a great water traffic, as an illustration. In many cases it is not possible to have the offices in immediate
proximity to the place where the goods are handled, but it would be very unfair not to de-rate those offices on account of their being situate some distance away if they are solely concerned in dealing with the transport of goods. The case of a dock company is different, because the area of a dock is sufficiently large to allow of the offices being concentrated at the one centre, and inasmuch as the expense of the upkeep of the offices, wherever they are situate, falls upon the trader, it is difficult to understand why in the case where the offices are within the area of the curtilage of a wharf they should be included for relief and should be excluded if, for the sake of convenience and, it may be, of economy, they are situated elsewhere.

Mr. E. BROWN: I associate myself with all that the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) has said, and I wish to put a point of view from Scotland which backs up the case for the Amendment and provides a further argument. I cannot do better than read a short letter which I have received this morning from the Clyde Navigation Trust.
Dear Sir,
I refer to the proposed deletion in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill, Clause 5, page 5, and the lines 40 to 44, and as a further argument in support of our contention that the offices, where separately situated, of a freight transport undertaking should be treated as part of the whole, I would point out that, under the Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926, First Schedule, paragraph 8, the offices of my trustees, which come under the definition in that paragraph of "heritages used wholly or mainly for the purposes thereof,' are granted a deduction of 20 per cent. from the gross annual value in arriving at the net or rateable value. It would appear, therefore, that on that precedent there is a good case for the relief from assessments on the valuation of offices of freight transport undertakings under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill.
That is the position under the Scottish law at the moment, and I think it should afford the right hon. Gentleman a precedent for giving us what we desire, as these undertakings cannot be carried on as complete undertakings without their offices.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: On behalf of the Dundee Harbour Trustees I wish to support this Amendment. It is a perfectly
reasonable one. These docks and wharves are all supervised and controlled from the headquarters, and the offices ought to be regarded as part of the undertaking which is to receive this relief of rates.

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. We must follow the analogy which is contained in Clause 3 of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who is so constant in his attendance at these proceedings on the Bill, and has contributed so very much to it, will remember that in the case of industrial hereditaments where the general offices are entirely separate these will not come within the proposals of this scheme, and it is very difficult to see why there should be any differentiation in this case. I understand that the object of the Amendment is to secure that the hereditaments primarily occupied and used as general offices should be de-rated, but, as a matter of fact, the Amendment leaves it open for argument as to whether the hereditament is or is not used for transport purposes. There may be a large block of buildings like those of the Port of London Authority on Tower Hill, which certainly would be excluded under this particular provision. It has been decided that where the administrative offices of a railway station are on the station itself they may be included as part of the station, and I think there is a good deal to be said for that point of view, but we must draw the line somewhere, and while I would be very anxious to meet my right hon. Friend as far as possible, there must be some limit, and I think the limit which has been drawn is a logical one. If we go beyond that we open a very wide gate. I must resist the Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: The Minister has made a considerable concession in respect of railway offices. There is an Amendment on the Paper to this Clause in the name of the Minister of Health, to leave out the words "and control," so that any part of the offices of a railway station which deals with the control of the station will be de-rated. I cannot see why there should not be a similar concession in respect of dock property. The offices of docks are used for the general control of the shipping, and so
forth, in the same way that the offices of a railway management are used for the control of a station, and if we want to put all forms of transport on all-fours there is every reason why this concession should be made to the docks. This series of Amendments have behind them the authority not only of the Port of London Authority, but of the Docks and Harbours Association and of the Public Wharfingers' Association. They are important commercial Amendments, dealing with an extremely technical and difficult part of commerce. People talk of basic industries. I should like to know what the basic industry of London is, except these commercial enterprises, which make it the market of the world. I think a similar concession to that made to the railways should he made to the docks.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: May I point out that in the great majority of cases it is almost necessary, from the point of view of commercial convenience that the offices should of a dock undertaking be in such a situation as would necessitate their being treated as a separate hereditament. Though the office is an essential part of the undertaking it is almost impossible to conduct the business unless it is separate, and if relief is given to the undertaking it is surely necessary to include the office, which would be excluded if this proviso were not taken out.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am disappointed with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. I can quite understand the desire he has, as representing the Government, to see the line drawn somewhere, but he has conceded the point regarding a railway station and its offices thereon, and I think that is absolutely identical with the case with which we are now dealing. The offices are on the ground in the same way as in the case of a railway. In regard to control, it was felt that it was necessary to meet the railways on that particular point. This does appear an anomaly and you give to the railways generally, from the Government standpoint, facilities far ahead of others. We have the power of the railway companies shown in a situation where otherwise the Government is defending the position very tenaciously. The whole basis of this Bill is one in regard to which the Minister is bound to be occasionally in a very awkward predicament about
drawing the line. We, as representing the constituencies, are having put before us a most reasonable case from the standpoint of the business people. We mast readily recognise the strength of their case, that there should be the same latitude given in regard to those docks and wharves as in the case of the offices pertaining thereto in the case of the railways.

Sir H. NIELD: We have been arguing as to the general principle in the case of passenger traffic in relation to canals and docks. The Minister has already guarded himself carefully in the earlier part of the Sub-section by excluding, in relation to railway undertakings, that portion of their premises with regard to the conveyance of passengers by train. I should be perfectly content if a similar proposal were put in in regard to canals, but there is the essential difference that a canal to-day does not carry passengers for hire in the ordinary sense. There may be the case of the barge man and his family, but there is no payment for that, and therefore passenger traffic as such does not exist on the canals in this country. I plead for absolute equality between the concession made to the railways and the concession made to the canals. They are all engaged in a common purpose, and that is the conveyance of products.

The CHAIRMAN: I think there is some misapprehension about this matter. I understood from the argument that the word "control" should be left out, that that referred only to railway companies. As I read this paragraph if the word "control" is left out, that would apply to the railways, canals or dock undertakings, and if that be the case this argument really seems to be about a matter which really does not arise in the Bill at present. The words in the Clause apply to railways, docks and canals, and I think the omission of the word "control" would equally apply to railways, docks and canals alike.

Sir H. NIELD: Hardly that, because there is a special reference to it in the concluding words of paragraph (a, i) of the Clause. I understand the Minister was about to get up, and I shall be very glad indeed if he will give an assurance that there shall be absolute equality in the dealings with these three different
kinds of undertakings, in order that in relation to the de-rating of property there shall be equality for all.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad that you, Mr. Hope, intervened to put the point that you did, because that is exactly the truth of the matter. I am rather at a loss to understand how any misapprehension upon this point can occur, because the Amendment standing in my name a little lower down on the Paper which deals with the slight alteration in the wording of the proviso which we have here, does not in any way alter the fact that that proviso applies not merely to railways but also to railways and canal and dock undertakings. I do not want to anticipate in any way what I may have to say on coming to the proviso as to the reasons for it. What I want to make- quite clear is that the Amendment which I am going to move later on is not one which applies only to railways, but equally to all three branches of freight-transport hereditaments in this matter.
Although I can quite understand that the proviso may give rise to some criticism on the part of those who think it takes something from them that otherwise they might have, it is only following strictly logically the line we have taken from the beginning in respect of the various kinds of hereditaments that are to be relieved. We have taken as the foundation of relief the fact that properties are within the curtilage or precincts of the business, and properties which are outside that curtilage, even though they may be strictly industrial hereditaments, nevertheless because they are outside, have been excluded from the benefits which will be given to industrial hereditaments. For instance you may, and generally do, find offices which are concerned in the management and control of a factory inside the precincts and curtilage of the factory. I think, probably, you will find there is the case where the office would actually not be inside the factory, but perhaps on the other side of the street. That is an anomaly, if you like, but there it is. It is not inside the factory, and, accordingly, it does not come in for the de-rating. Similarly, in the case of the railways, the ordinary booking offices are generally offices which are concerned in the control of the railway undertakings and a part
of the station. In that case, following the examples in the case of the industrial hereditaments, they will be de-rated but where you have a case, and I think there is such a case, of the principal management offices of the railway being separated from the railway station, and occupying a curtilage of its own, that is excluded from the de-rating provisions which apply to the station itself.
So, again, in the case of a dock undertaking. Take the case of the Port of London Authority. There you have an office which is entirely separate from the actual dock undertaking itself, and that will not be de-rated. I may say this, perhaps, for the consolation of hon. Members who feel that this is a grievance. We made it clear from the beginning that we regard the relief that is being given to freight-transport at present, not as relief to those hereditaments for their own use and benefit, but as a means of giving still further assistance to productive industry. That, of course, is subject to a definite arrangement with the railways. In the case of the docks, no such definite arrangement has been made, but, nevertheless the conditions which there exist—the statutory conditions, under which they work—practically ensure that any relief that they obtain shall be passed on to their consumers. Therefore, it is not merely the dock, railway or canal undertakings that are going to suffer by the fact that certain properties of theirs do not come in for de-rating. It is the consumer to whom otherwise the relief would be passed on, and that is a much more indirect form of relief. Of course we have, in that connection, always to consider the fact which I have mentioned so often, that any extra relief that is being given has got to be made good out of the funds provided by the general taxpayer. We think that, in the circumstances, we should not be justified in adding to the burdens of the taxpayer in respect of these particular offices which, after all, could give very little in the way of extra assistance to productive industry. That is the general ground of the distinction which has been made, and I am happy to be able to assure hon. Members that at any rate there is no invidious distinction being made between one kind of transport hereditament and another.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: What will be the determining factor? Will it be the geographical distance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Whether it is within the close, curtilage or precincts or not.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: It is almost a universal practice that the offices are part of the undertaking in regard to railways, whereas in the case of docks it is nearly always necessary that the offices should be separate.

Mr. TOWNEND: It is true, as the Minister has said, that the relief in these cases has to be passed on to the consumer, but whatever anomalies exist in connection with other industries there are differences in the case of railways even between station and station. It is an actual fact that in many cases the offices that deal exclusively with the operative side of railway traffic, and particularly that affecting the accountancy side of the operative side of the railways apart from management, are today in one company within a set of offices that are outside the goods siding; while in the case of another company in the same town the accountancy work and the office work is attached to the station and would obtain no relief. In the one case de-rating would apply because the office dealing with goods station work apart from management work is away from the station. It is because this happens in nearly every city, not as an exceptional case but because it operates all over the Kingdom that this Amendment has been put down. Nothing the Minister of Health has said has dealt with this very important and very serious anomaly, and I suggest that before the Bill reaches a final form, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to distinguish between administrative and operative clerical work on the railway companies, he shall take some other standard than that the work is done within the close, curtilage or precincts of the stations.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 40, after the word "hereditament" to insert the words
other than a dining room, recreation room, or recreation ground for the use of workpeople.
I do not know whether the Minister of Health is prepared to accept this Amendment. If he is willing to do so, that will shorten my remarks. We have just heard from the Minister that certain premises in a railway station will receive de-rating relief. He mentioned the booking office, and apparently the restaurant will receive relief, but it is not certain that the workpeople's dining room, recreation room or recreation ground will receive relief. We want to encourage all undertakings to take every possible economic measure for the comfort and recreation of their workpeople. What is known as welfare work in connection with large firms has made enormous progress, and firms take immense care in regard to the well-being of their workpeople. I think that kind of work should be encouraged in every possible way.
With regard to dining rooms, there has been an immense change in recent years in this respect, and I have seen myself immense improvements made in the Royal Dockyards since I was a boy, and now they have well-appointed dining rooms and decent messing arrangements. I think all these places ought to have the same de-rating relief because in the end such things are bound to reduce the cost of transport. With regard to recreation grounds, we have on foot at the present time a movement headed by the Duke of York to provide more recreation grounds and playing fields, and I am glad to say that a great many large firms up and down the country have within the last few years provided recreation grounds for their workpeople, and I think such places ought to have rate relief. Surely the Minister of Health will agree that open spaces provided for the recreation of the employés of any firm or any transport undertaking should receive all the help which the State can give. I do not know what the acceptance of this Amendment would cost, but it could not be a great deal, and it would not be much compared with the added happiness, comfort and contentment of the employés of the firms dealt with in this Clause. I think the case for my Amendment is overwhelming.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am indeed overwhelmed, not by this Amendment but by the mentality of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) who apparently
thinks that it is possible that a dining room, recreation room or a recreation ground for the use of the workpeople would be
primarily occupied and used as offices for, or for purposes ancillary to, the general direction management and control of a railway canal or dock undertaking, shall not be deemed a freight-transport hereditament.
The hon. and gallant Member, I think, can hardly have taken the trouble to see exactly what the effect of his Amendment would be if it were inserted in this place, or even if it were made in some other form; but perhaps I may assume that he did not intend to indicate that recreation grounds or dining rooms were to be used primarily for this purpose, but that all that he intended to do was to demonstrate his assent to and approval of the general idea of the promotion of the welfare of employés of great public undertakings by the provision of facilities for recreation and so on. I have to inform him that there is nothing in this Bill which would exclude dining rooms and recreation rooms for the use of the employés of a railway, canal or dock undertaking from the benefits of derating under the provisions of the Bill, and, if he would be good enough to cast his eye upon a later Amendment in my name to Clause 6—in page 7, line 39, to leave out from the word "shall" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes, except in so far as it is occupied and used for the purposes of a dwelling house, hotel, or place of public refreshment,…"—
he will see that that Amendment of mine, while it does not really alter the effect of the Clause, puts the matter in a slightly different form, and, of course, gives to these hereditaments the benefit of de-rating except in so far as they are occupied and used for the purposes of a dwelling house, hotel or place of public refreshment. The hon. and gallant Member will see that my Amendment is deliberately worded so as to differentiate between the public refreshment room and the refreshment room, dining room or recreation room provided for the use, not of the public, but of the employés of the undertaking. The effect will be to provide that all parts of the transport
undertaking are to be deemed to be used for transport purposes with the specific exceptions named, and that will apply, therefore, to recreation rooms or dining rooms.
It does not necessarily apply to recreation grounds, but the hon. and gallant Member will see that a recreation ground, although it may be provided for the employés of a railway company, stands in rather a different position from the room which is part of the precincts or premises of the railway company, and I think it would hardly be subject to the de-rating proposals. The recreation ground of a railway, dock or canal undertaking will be in exactly the same position as the recreation ground of an industrial firm, and it would, of course, be clearly an anomaly to say that a recreation ground which was provided by a railway company, and on which the company paid the rates, should be de-rated, while a ground hired by the employés themselves should be left fully rated as before. In any case, the rates on such grounds would not be a very serious affair, but there is that distinction between the recreation ground and the recreation room. I think, however, that the hon. and gallant Member will see from what I have said that this matter has had the attention of my Department, and has been provided for in the way that we think best in the practical machinery of the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman has chosen to be amusing to himself and one or two other hon. Members because I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) consider the general direction and management to include the provision of facilities for recreation for the workpeople. I still think so.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Primarily?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman still thinks that it is not a necessary part of the general direction and management of the undertaking to provide for the well-being of the workpeople, I can do nothing for him; he is a representative of the type of employer, rapidly becoming obsolete, who thinks that all that sort of thing is nonsense. The course of nature will remove those whom he represents, not only from industry, but from government.
in due time. The right hon. Gentleman, apparently, intends to meet us, in his further Amendment, with regard to recreation rooms, but not with regard to recreation grounds, and he says that it would be an anomaly if he acceded to our request in that respect. This Bill, however, is full of anomalies. One more will not hurt it, and I think it is so necessary to encourage the provision by

great undertakings of open playing spaces for their workpeople that I am going to ask the Committee to support me and my hon. Friend in pressing this Amendment to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 220.

Division No. 245.]
AYES.
[9.52 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, W. M. (Stall, Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, J. (Woiverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Harney, E. A.
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawford, H. E.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
Mosley, Oswald
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Palln, John Henry
Wright, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edion., Cent.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.




Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Apsley, Lord
Brass, Captain W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Astor, Viscountess
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Christie, J. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Briggs, J. Harold
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brittain, Sir Harry
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, Reginald George


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Bennett, A. J
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nowb'y)
Colman, N. C. D.


Bethel, A.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cope, Major Sir William


Bevan, S. J.
Burman, J. B.
Couper, J. B.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cadogan, Major Hon, Edward
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Calne, Gordon Hall
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Campbell, E. T.
Crookshank Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Carver, Major W. H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ropner, Major L.


Davies Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jephcott, A. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salmon, Major I.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dixey, A. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Duckworth, John
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Edge, Sir William
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Savery, S. S.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Loder, J. de V.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Long, Major Eric
Shepperson, E. W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lougher, Lewis
Skelton, A. N.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Slaney, Major p. Kenyon


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Smithers, Waldron


Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Ford, Sir P. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Forrest, W.
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gates, Percy
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Templeton, W. P.


Gower, Sir Robert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Grace, John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Heller, R. J.
Tinne, J. A.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w,E)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Waddington, R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hammersley, S. S.
Oakley, T.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harland, A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Harrison, G. J. C.
Pennefather, Sir John
wells, S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wiggins, William Martin


Haslam, Henry C.
Perring, Sir William George
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Preston, William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Ean


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Price, Major C. W. M.
Withers, John James


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Radford, E. A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Raine, Sir Walter
Womersley, W. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberrnd, Whiteh'n)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wragg, Herbert


Hume, Sir G. H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)



Iveagh, Countess of
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, after the word "direction" to insert the word "and."
This Amendment and the next Amendment on the Paper—in line 42, to leave out the words "and control"—are to be read together, and they amount to the leaving out of the words "and control" and the insertion of the word "and" in order to make the Clause read "general direction and management." There is no particular significance to be attached to this alteration, but it has been represented to me that the word "control" used in this connection might carry us further than we intend. The word "control" as applied to railway offices, might include such offices as a stationmaster's office or a train control
office and that is not intended. This provision is intended merely to apply to the general offices of the undertaking, and it is thought that the words "direction and management" will sufficiently describe that intention and will not give rise to any possibility of misinterpretation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 42, leave out the words "and control."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out from the word "merchandise" in line 9, to the end of line 11, and to insert instead thereof the words:
including the construction, maintenance and repair of all ways, works, machinery and plant used in connection with the undertaking.
This Amendment is little more than a drafting Amendment. The words of the Bill refer specifically to locomotives, rolling stock and so forth and it is thought that this might possibly be interpreted as meaning that any other matters in connection with the railways, which were not specifically mentioned, were intended to be omitted. Therefore I propose to insert the more general words of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 18, leave out from the word "merchandise" to the word "undertaking" in line 20 and to insert instead thereof the words:
including the construction, maintenance, and repair of all ways, works, machinery, and plant used in connection with the."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The following Amendmens stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 6, line 18, after the word "with" to insert the words:
the making, conditioning, or repairing of vessels, locomotives, rolling stock, or canal or railway plant or materials or."—[Miss Lawrence, Mr. Gosling, Mr. March, Sir H. Nield, Sir J. Nall, Mr. E. Brown.]

In page 6, line 25, after the word "conveyance" to insert the words "or transport."—[Mr. Chamberlain, Miss Lawrence, Mr. Gosling, Mr. March, Sir H. Nield, Sir J. Nall.]

Mr. BROWN: On a point of Order. May I ask by what authority is a Member's name, once it has been put down to an Amendment, removed from the Order Paper. I ask, not for my own purpose, but for the protection of private Members in future.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the point to which the hon. Member is referring is a well-known one in the rules and customs of the House of Commons, under which not more than a certain number of names are put down to any one Amendment.

Mr. BROWN: May I point out that it used to be the case that only the first Member who went to the Table had the Amendment put down in his name. Now I understand the method is that if the
official Opposition put down an Amendment and if a Conservative Member and a Liberal Member put down the same Amendment, the official Opposition comes first. In this case, I handed in an Amendment, first, in common with a number of others, but my name appears sixth. I do not object to the Minister's name going on top in this case, but there may be occasions in the future when there will be a difference of opinion as to the six names to an Amendment, and the rule may work very harshly in connection with a minority party in the House. That is the reason why I raise the point now. I think the name of a Member who puts down an Amendment ought not to be dropped without any notice to him and without his consent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am glad the hon. Member is only contemplating a possible grievance in the future and not one that has transpired.
Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 25, after the word "conveyance," insert the words "or transport."
Leave out from the word "undertaking" in line 26 to the word "undertaking" in line 28, and insert instead thereof the words:
including the construction, maintenance, and repair of all ways, works, machinery, and plant used in connection with the."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, to leave out from the word "undertaking" to the end of line 30.
It does occur to me that these words ought to be left out. Premises used for dock purposes, including that portion of a dock which is connected with the provision of accommodation for the reconditioning or repairing of ships, ought to come within the freight-transport. If they come within the freight-transport, it means that, though they get a reduction of three-quarters of their rates, they have to pass it on to the customers. It is quite possible that there may he shops that are connected with the reconditioning or repairing of ships quite apart from anything in association with docks. If work is done in these places that are not associated with docks, they will get a reduction of three-quarters of the rates, which the owners can put into their pocket. If the same work is done in
places that are associated with docks, they get a reduction of three-quarters of their rates, and they have to pass it on to the Customs authorities.
I do not see why the same Amendment should not have been moved earlier in reference to the reconditioning and repairing of locomotives, rolling stock or railway material. I do not pretend to have a great deal of material at my disposal, but that is the thought which has occurred to me. I know that in the north engines are made sometimes by the railway companies, and sometimes by a body that is wholly unconnected with the railway companies. If the engines are made by the railway companies, then three-quarters reduction is granted, but that three-quarters reduction has to be passed on to the consumers. If a light engine is made by a body unconnected with the railway company, there is a three-fourths reduction which goes to the profits of the concern. Does not that handicap railway companies and dock companies who do the work themselves? A man wants an engine built. He will say: "Shall I have it built in my own yard, where, when I get the reduction, it will pass away from me, or shall I have it built elsewhere, where the reduction will be granted that will not pass away?" It seems to me to have a tendency to take away from these undertakings, dock concerns and railway companies, the doing of their own work, because if it is done on their own premises they will not get the benefit of the de-rating. They will get it in the first instance, but they have to pass it on. These points have occurred to me, and I think they ought to be considered. [Interruption.] I am very sorry. My attention has been called to this point. I look at the next Amendment and I see that the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated my arguments.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I paid very great attention to the weighty arguments adduced by the hon. and learned Member and to the various thoughts which occurred to him, in the course of the observations he made upon an Amendment which I had, I think, only seen at the moment of his rising. He is mistaken in thinking that the Amendment next on the Paper has anything to do with the Amendment which he has just
put forward with such force. I venture to explain that the real effect of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment will be to exclude from de-rating a graving yard or a ship-repairing yard belonging to a dock undertaking. It is not necessarily the fact that in the case of a dock undertaking possessing, let us say, a ship-repairing yard and being derated in respect of that yard, the resulting relief would go to the customers of the dock undertaking. I cannot say that it would, but I may perhaps put this further explanation. If this Amendment were carried and the particular kinds of premises which are covered by these words were excluded from the benefits of de-rating, as part of dock undertakings, that would not exclude them from de-rating, because they would be de-rated as industrial hereditaments. Therefore, the only question before the Committee is whether the ship-repairing yards or graving docks should be de-rated as industrial hereditaments or as dock undertakings. That can make no possible difference to the dock undertaking itself, and I suggest that, as the hon. and learned Member's purpose has been achieved by the discussion which has taken place, he should not press his Amendment further.

Mr. HARNEY: The effect of the Amendment would be to put the work done by dock firms on the same footing as similar work done at purely industrial works. The point I was making was, that if you have the same work done at a purely industrial place of business, there is a three-fourths effective de-rating, but if you have the work done by a dock undertaking, there is a three-fourths ineffective de-rating, because the de-rating there has to be passed on. Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that, after his remarks, I should withdraw my Amendment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because the benefit in both cases accrues to the dock undertaking. It does not make the slightest difference to the dock undertaking in which category it comes.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and learned Member persist in his Amendment?

Mr. HARNEY: I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, to leave out the words "the reconditioning or repair of ships," and to insert instead thereof the words
vessels and their stores, equipment, and tackle (including fishing tackle), whether for purposes of repair or otherwise.
This Amendment is designed to include the provision of accommodation by dock undertakings for vessels that are lying up. In connection with the fishing industry certain vessels have to lie up for very considerable parts of the year. This Amendment has been drafted to remove a doubt as to whether accommodation provided by a dock undertaking for storage or equipment or tackle such as may be used in connection with these purposes, is really a dock purpose. I have no doubt that this slight Amendment will be welcomed by those who are interested in the fishing industry.

Commander WILLIAMS: This Amendment deals with a point which I raised at a much earlier stage of the Bill, and affects the position of certain docks in regard to the fishing industry. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making it perfectly clear that a place which provides accommodation for fishing vessels, tackle, etc., will be covered. I thank him most sincerely for the help that he has given in the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, at the end, to insert the words
'Canal' includes any inland navigation, also wharves and landing-places of and belonging to such canal or navigation and used for the purposes of public traffic, and the expression 'canal undertakings' shall be construed accordingly.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether you are passing over my Amendment to insert the words "or connected with deep sea fishing"? I wish to move it in order to clarify the position. It may be already covered in the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not selected that Amendment on the ground that it is covered by the previous Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My point is that merchandise is mentioned several times in the Bill, but fish
is not mentioned anywhere; and the Amendment we have just passed only included fishing tackle.

Sir K. WOOD: The word "merchandise" includes fish.

Mr. BROWN: The point at issue in the Amendment I am moving is that we think the words we propose are a better definition. They are taken from the Canal Traffic Act, 1854, and safeguard the interests of wharves concerned in the traffic of merchandise along the canals.

Sir K. WOOD: With the hon. Member's permission, it would be better to deal with the matter in the next Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend, which is in the form which the Parliamentary draftsman desires.

Mr. BROWN: May I put one point. There is an Amendment later on in the name of the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) and myself in connection with the definition of a dock undertaking. May I ask if the Parliamentary draftsman has considered that? It makes no difference to the Bill, but those interested in wharves and docks would prefer the alternative as put forward by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh and myself.

Sir K. WOOD: When we get to that Amendment we shall be able to accept it in principle, although it will have to be re-drafted.

Mr. BROWN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: In page 6, line 34, after the word "any," insert the words "inland navigation."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, at the end to insert the words "'Dock undertaking' includes any undertaking comprising a dock as part thereof."
At an earlier stage in our proceedings the Minister of Health, in dealing with an Amendment I proposed on Clause 5 with regard to canals, said that he would consider the point raised, but was not satisfied with the drafting. This Amendment is intended to fulfil substantially the same purpose, and is, in fact, an alteration of the Amendment I proposed on
Clause 5. I do not intend to speak on this Amendment, but only to ask the Minister that when he considers the question of wharves and canals he will take this Amendment also into consideration.

Sir K. WOOD: I want to say that, as far as the Amendment on the Paper is concerned, we consider it to be too wide. But we will look into this matter between now and the Report stage, and have regard to this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out from the word "Act," in line 2, to the end of line 5.
Light railways can be used, and are used, and ought to be used more extensively, for the transport of light produce, particularly agricultural produce, from place to place, and we say that where a light railway enters in any way into the transport of merchandise it ought to be treated in precisely the same

way as a heavy railway and ought to receive the benefit of this Bill. One of the most important things in the development of agriculture is the provision of new, cheap, and extended means of transport.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, at the end, to add the words:
'Vessel' has the 6ame meaning as that assigned to it by Section seven hundred and forty-two of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1884.

This Amendment is moved merely to add to the Clause a definition of the word "vessel."

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 119.

Division No. 246.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gates, Percy


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, C.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gower, Sir Robert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grace, John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Christie, J. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Apsley, Lord
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w.E)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Astor, Viscountess
Colman, N. C. D.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Atholl, Duchess of
Cope, Major Sir William
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Couper, J. B.
Hacking, Douglas H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hammersley, S. S.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bennett, A. J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harland, A.


Bethel, A.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of


Bevan, S. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Haslam, Henry C.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dixey, A. C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vansittart
Duckworth, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Edge, Sir William
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brass, Captain W.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mosslty)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ellis, R. G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Briggs, J. Harold
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hume, Sir G. H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hurd, Percy A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Burman, J. B.
Fenby, T. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fielden, E. B.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ford, Sir P. J.
Jephcott, A. R.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Forrest, W.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Campbell, E. T.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Carver, Major W. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Perring, Sir William George
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Storry-Deans, R.


Lamb, J. O.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Preston, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Loder, J. de V.
Radford, E. A.
Templeton, W. P.


Long, Major Eric
Raine, Sir Walter
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ramsden, E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lumley, L. R.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Tinne, J. A.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Tomlinson, R. P.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon, Angus
Robinson, Sir I (Lancs., Stretford)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macintyre, Ian
Ropner, Major L.
Waddington, R.


McLean, Major A.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston- on-Hull)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Margesson, Capt. D.
Rye, F. G.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Salmon, Major I.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wells, S. R.


Meller, R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.


Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wiggins, William Martin


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Savery, S. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nelson, Sir Frank
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Withers, John James


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Shepperson, E. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Nuttall, Ellis
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Womersley, W. J.


Oakley, T.
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Pennefather, Sir John
Smithers, Waidron



Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Marthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardle, George D.
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hllisbro')
Harney, E. A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Heyday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Smilile, Robert


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Mitchell, E, Rosslyn (Paisley)
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mosley, Oswald
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

CLAUSE 6.—(Entries in valuation lists as to freight-transport hereditaments.)

Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out from the word "used," in line 21, to the end of the Subsection.
The Sub-section will read, if these words are omitted:
In every valuation list every freight-transport hereditament, which is occupied and used wholly for transport purposes shall be shown as being so occupied and used.
The reasons underlying the Amendment are these. As the Clause stands, the valuation list has to show, first the freight-transport premises that are wholly occupied and used for freight-transport purposes, and then it has to differentiate the portions that are used for other purposes. The valuation list has further to differentiate what portion of the annual value ought to be attributable if it were used for one, two or three transport purposes, such as docks, railways or whatever they may be. My submission is that this is a wholly unworkable suggestion. When the surveyor has looked at a freight-transport hereditament, he can certainly put an annual value upon it, but he is asked to go further, and say how far it is used for freight-transport purposes, and how far it is used for other purposes. Then he has to go further still, and that portion of the annual value which he attributes to freight-transport purposes he has further to divide into so much for one freight-transport purpose, say docks, so much for railway purposes, and so on. It is perfectly impossible to differentiate and put into sections the annual value that it attributable to any of these purposes, because nobody can say how much is attributable to one purpose and how much to another purpose; but the draftsman, seeing that, thought to make it clear, and he says, "You shall treat as being attributable to freight-transport purposes a certain area of the premises, and treat as being attributable to other purposes another area of the premises."
According to the Bill, when the surveyor has to ask himself what portion of the hereditament he is going to mark out as being attributable to other than freight-transport purposes, he has to say, for the purposes of this Clause, where he finds any portion of it as a dwelling house,
or a hotel, or a place of public refreshment, or a, place for providing warehouse accommodation for merchandise not in the course of transport, that these things are not attributable to freight-transport purposes. You are to value them independently. Take the case of a counting house in connection with a dock, the thinking department of the dock. We are told that this is to be valued independently, that it is not included in the meaning which is given to "freight-transport purposes." How is it to be valued? The surveyor, in making his valuation, has still to have regard to the old formula, "The annual value of this place is how much a hypothetical tenant would give for it." What would a hypothetical tenant offer for a counting house apart from the thing of which it was the counting house? Also, he will have to consider what a hypothetical tenant would give for the undertaking apart from the counting house which is the brain of it. I should say, if I were a surveyor, "Why should you ask me to value that counting house apart from the material works of which it is the brains? I say that apart from that and situated as it is it is worth nothing of itself. Its only value is that it is a counting house connected with the material works. If you ask me to value it disconnected from the material works, I am then bound to say it is worth nothing."
On the other hand, he is to be asked to value the material works, and he says "What value am I to put upon those material works if I am to cut away the brains of the works? They are worth nothing." You might say to a navvy "I hire you for your brawn, your muscles. What are your muscles worth?" They are worth a certain amount if they are part of a living navvy. But if you are asked to say "What are your muscles worth if your head is cut off?" the answer would be "They are worth nothing." If you were asked to say "What is the head worth if you cut off the muscles?" again the answer would be "Nothing." Therefore the whole scheme of this Bill throw upon surveyors an impossible task.
Let any Member of this Committee imagine for a moment that he is a surveyor. He looks at a dock, and he says "My first duty is to see what is the annual value of that dock, what will a hypothetical tenant give for it." He
makes a calculation and says "A hypothetical tenant would give £20,000 a year for that. I am to cut up my £20,000 a year in two ways. First I am to say how-much of the £20,000 is attributable to the cost of the place where the physical work is done, and how much is attributable to the part where the thinking is done, and I am to value them independently." What does he do? What would any hon. Member do? I ask the question, and I want an answer. He will say "The counting house it is a very beautiful place, it would be a charming place for a restaurant, or for a bedroom, or for a smoke room, but, unfortunately, it is a counting house for this business, and I am asked to value it as a counting house. What are the tests by which I am to work out what portion of the whole total annual value I am to attribute to it as a counting house standing alone?" I daresay this Bill will go through, and the valuers will then come together and say "The British Parliament has put before us a task that is beyond the wit of man. We all have to make fees out of it. Let us make some arrangement—toss up, and fix it in that way."
The task does not stop there, because if you assume that they have divided the £20,000 of which I am speaking into £12,000 for the working part of it and £8,000 for the thinking part of it, they will have to came back to the £12,000 and cut that up again. We have to see about a dock. A dock would have railways connected with it, and there would be railways unconnected with the dock also. The valuer has to say with reference to the railways connected with the dock that these are attributable to the dock section of the freight undertaking, and that the railways which are not part of the dock are attributable to the railway portion of the undertaking. You have to divide the two and to take the £12,000 annual value and say how much of that amount should be put in reference to one railway that is attributable to the dock definition, and how much to the other railway that is not attributable to the dock definition. Really, I never pretend to be a very ignorant man, but it does certainly occur to me that, however acute may be the mind that you apply to the task, it is impossible for the valuer to find a scientific basis that will enable him to sever the total value
that he puts on the whole hereditament into the divisions which this Bill will call upon him to make. Therefore, what this Amendment does is this. You will leave out all the words that have to do with that severance, you will look at a dock undertaking and at a railway undertaking and say, "The value that I put on this is so-and-so, and let there be de-rating in respect of that," and you will drop entirely these fantastic and metaphysical divisions which are part and parcel of the work which has to be done.

Miss LAWRENCE: The Amendment and the Clause under consideration show how very unfortunate it was to place this Bill on the Floor of the House. The Clause we have just passed and the Clause we are now discussing could no doubt have been considerably improved because here, for the first time, the Minister has been forced to look at the Clause and really consider what this laborious business of mixed hereditaments means. He is prepared to look at it on this occasion, because the interests concerned are very powerful and command a considerable number of Members of the House and, above all, these are undertakings which are so well organised that they can quickly get their points put before the Members who represent them. After all, the difficulties of having mixed valuations in transport hereditaments are not so great as some of those we have been dealing with. This Clause has been so dotted and patched all over with Amendments that it is almost like Joseph's coat, and that has increased the difficulties which the valuers have to overcome. Now in connection with the most intricate interests of all we are running on a distinction between railways, dockyards, and canals. Valuations have been for a long time the profession of a highly specialised class of persons, and difficult questions frequently arise when railways, docks and canals join one another. [Interruption.] If you read the reports of the surveyors of taxes, you will find that many apprehensions are expressed with the utmost possible strength by many learned authorities. It seems to me that the more we go on with what is called simplification the move we find that each complication we remove discloses another underlying complication, but we keep going on with the Bill.
I wish, even at the eleventh hour, we could persuade the Minister of Health to postpone this discussion and find some opportunity of talking over the matter with persons who understand it. I suggested on the Second Reading of this Bill that the Minister of Health should consult the dock authorities, and I find that they have now been consulted. I think this question should be properly discussed, because the difficulties involved are not light matters. The proposals in this Clause will lead to a very great waste of time and money, and as I have frequently pointed out, they will lead to a good deal of litigation. I am sure we could spend a profitable three weeks upstairs on Committee discussing the proposals in this Bill. At the present time the principle of the Bill is past praying for—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CLEVELAND AND DURHAM COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — WEALD ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. GILLETT: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be in order for me to make now what remarks I want to make both on this Bill and on the Wessex Electricity Bill, which is also on the Order Paper, so as to save the time of the House, rather than discuss them separately, the two Divisions, if desired, being taken at the end of the discussion?

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the same principle is involved in both Bills, and, therefore, the hon. Member will save the time of the House if he makes his remarks on both at the same time.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I have been looking at the Weald Electricity Supply Bill, and, as far as I know, it is a very different Bill from the other.

Mr. SPEAKER: It may be a different Bill, but I understand that the principle is the same.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: So far as I know, it is not.

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
The object which I and my hon. Friends have in bringing this matter before the House is to get from the Minister certain information as to the general policy that the Government are following in connection with the granting of these large concessions. I am specially referring now to the Wessex Electricity Bill. I may say, in order to satisfy the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), that our chief line of argument is connected with the Wessex Electricity Bill. It deals only with one special point, a point which those responsible for the Paper issued this morning have already brought out, and it is only that point that we want to stress in connection with the Weald proposal.
The House, perhaps, hardly realises, or, at any rate, it has not been brought prominently before the House, the largeness of the sums of money that are being expended at the present time in connection with these new electricity proposals. In the last Report of the Electricity Commissioners it is stated that about £75,000,000 of capital has been expended in connection with new companies during the last four years, and, since 1920, the number of undertakings holding statutory powers to supply electricity has increased from 532 to 623. There are certain points that I want specially to put to the Minister, more in regard to the financial aspect of the floating of these new companies. Of the two proposals that we are now discussing, the larger is that in connection with the Wessex Electricity Company, a company which was started last year, and has powers over Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Buckinghamshire; and, as hon. Members may have noticed, in the Paper which, strangely enough, has
been supplied by the Weald Electricity Company, they have informed us that the Wessex Company has an area which must cover some 6,000 square miles. The proposal now before us in connection with the Wessex scheme asks for still larger powers to supply a greater area. One of the peculiar things in connection with the electricity companies which are being started in different parts of the country is the relationship existing between one and another. I need hardly remind the House that the Government, in connection with their electricity scheme, refused to accept the proposal made from these benches urging that the whole of the electricity service should be in the hands either of the State or the municipalities. It is to be regretted that the reorganisation of this vast industry was not carried out on those lines, and even some who sit opposite will agree that if there is a case for any great public service being in the hands of the public, there is such a case for the electricity service.
I leave that side of the question, however, because in the queries which I wish to put to the Minister, I accept the position, that the Government are working on these lines—that the Electricity Commissioners look impartially at private companies and municipal undertakings, and select generating stations here and there and receive proposals for enlargement of areas from both municipal and private undertakings, and give their consent as they think these schemes satisfactory. This has given the opportunity to certain financial interests to plan out large districts for the extension of electricity undertakings. As a member of the London County Council I have watched with interest what the London companies have been doing and now on a larger scale it is interesting to see the developments that are taking place. The "Daily Express," in March of this year, gave a certain amount of information from their City correspondent. They said:
Important developments affecting electricity supplies for lighting and power in the South of England outside London are expected to follow the formation of the recently formed trust, the Greater London and Counties Trust, Limited. The Trust is to provide for the supply of electricity in the southern counties.
It goes on:
Electricity is in the hands of a number of small companies but it is the intention of the new trust to consolidate such companies under one combine. American capital is being used in connection with this enterprise…but the control is entirely under British management.
I confess to a certain amount of hesitation in believing that. One's experience is that control ultimately rests where the money comes from. They go on to point out that the Trust has taken control of a number of companies, including Edmondson's Electricity Corporation, Limited, the East Anglian Electricity Company, the Oxford Electricity Company and that it was said to have made an offer for the Sevenoaks Electricity Company. About the same time the "Financial Times," in a somewhat similar fashion wrote about this Trust, which comes under the category of an ordinary investment trust, and said it had already secured holdings in a number of well-established supply companies. The interesting point is that among other companies mentioned in which they have secured a certain amount of control were the North Metropolitan Electricity Supply Company, Edmondson's Electricity Corporation, Limited, the Oxford Electricity Company, the Western Electricity Distributing Company, the East Anglian Electricity Company and the Wessex Electricity Company—one of the concerns from which we now have a proposal before the House. It goes on to say:
It is obvious that with a capital of £300,000 the Trust is not in a position to carry out such an ambitious programme without assistance. This assistance has been granted from American financial quarters, not connected in any way with the American electrical manufacturing industry but interested solely in this matter as an investment.
The fact that these trusts have been formed and that the Wessex Company is definitely connected with one of them has induced me to look at the board of the Wessex Company which is making application to the House of Commons for these powers. I find that out of six or seven directors, one of them is a director of the North Metropolitan Electric Supply Company, another a director of the Edmonton Electricity Company, two of them directors of the Oxfordshire Electrical Company, one a director of the East Anglian Electricity Company, and another is on the board of the Bedford-
shire, Cambridgeshire and Hunts Electricity Company. The question which I want to bring before the Minister is, how far, when applications come before the Electricity Commissioners, the financial arrangements are considered. I do not mean whether these concerns have the money to promote an undertaking, but how far the Minister really considers the fact that all over England these different companies, though nominally possessing different names, are closely connected, much more closely than we think. With regard to the Oxfordshire Electrical Company which is mentioned here, I know that recently in the Oxford Corporation the question came up as to the figure which was being charged and as to whether the Oxford Corporation should purchase the company, and I believe that many members of the Oxford Corporation did not realise at that time that this concern which they looked upon as having something to do with Oxford was really under the control of one of the great combines. This is really the point where I want to bring in the extraordinary position of the Weald Electricity Company, because it seems to me to be an illustration of the complexity and the linking together of these different companies. The people of Crowborough at the present time are supplied with electricity by a company which supplies gas and electricity at the same time. I understand that it is not satisfactory, and that arrangements have been made with the Weald Electricity Company to take over the electricity supply. This is the only thing that can be done from a business standpoint.
Hon. Members who have read the paper which they received to-day will have seen that it is not the Weald Company with which they are really dealing at all. You find that the Weald Electricity Supply Company really belongs to, or that the capital is held by, Callender's Share and Investment Trust, Limited. When you investigate what the Callender Share and Investment Trust, Limited, is, you find that it is controlled by the Callender Cable and Construction Company, Limited, which has connections with various electric light companies—the Lancashire Electric Light Company, the Scottish Power Company, the South Wales Power Company, and other interests. Therefore you
are not dealing here with a company simply formed for the purpose of supplying electric light, but the moment you bring in the interests of another company who will be well qualified to supply some of the needs of this particular company it seems to me you alter the whole position. One of the greatest difficulties of controlling or deciding what firms should be charged for power is that once you get companies all mixed together in the way that these companies are becoming connected at the present time, the Government have no control whatever, nor can they have any check upon the finances of those companies. We who have watched the traffic problem of London know that one of the most difficult things is to know the exact position of the different traffic bodies, because of the connection which they have with the common pool. It is difficult to know what their profits are. You never know what is going on behind the scenes, or in the transfer from one account to another, what may have taken place. If once you have electrical companies connected with companies that will supply the goods wanted by that electrical company, you have no check whatever upon the real financial position and standing of that company. When you connect a company in southern England with a company in another part of the country, I put it to the Minister that he cannot possibly, as the years go by, keep such a control over the finance of the undertaking that he can really be satisfied as to what the position is and the rate that the company ought to charge for electricity.
The point, in the first place, is the charge that is to be made for electricity. In one of these Bills reference is made to an Act passed last year. I think the juice is laid down and the figure fixed for two or three years, but there is a Clause which says that at the end of two or three years, they can approach the Minister and ask for reconsideration.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): At the end of three years.

Mr. GILLETT: That is good enough for me. You may find a request being made to the Minister that there might be an alteration, and that request being made by a company that is connected with other companies in the way that
I have outlined. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it will be possible, as the years go by, not at the present time, to keep any check on the finance of these companies? If they can come to him and say: "We cannot afford to go on at the price we charge, and we must ask for a higher charge" will he be satisfied that the claim is just, and feel that he can agree with it? We go on granting these large concessions. Last year or the year before the Wessex Company had a large tract of land parcelled out. We know that that has been a common thing in connection with other companies, and we know perfectly well that in many cases it is a great hindrance to a scheme perhaps for the planning of a new town. We had an illustration a few years ago in London when the London County Council were starting one of their new towns on the outskirts of London. They wanted a water supply and they found that they were outside the area of the Metropolitan Water Board and that in the part of the country in which they were promoting their scheme there was some water company who had not the financial power to meet the needs of the time, who had been granted a concession. When these concessions are being granted, is there any power to take them away without compensation?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will take the trouble to read the Bill he will see that all his points are met.

Mr. GILLETT: I have read the Bill and there are references to previous Acts which make it exceedingly difficult to follow. I am not discussing the details; I am asking for the general principle upon which he is making these concessions. The Crowborough Corporation were granted a concession, which they did nothing to obtain, and they are selling it to another company. If we grant these concessions, can they be sold to another company? The Minister, in the answer he gave to me on the matter, said that if the local body wanted to obtain part of the land which was now being conceded, warning could be given to the company, and if it did not do something within two months, the concession lapsed. The other point I want to mention is as to what measure of control he retains over these companies. It is
a very difficult thing to keep anything like proper control over these great services once they have passed into the hands of private companies. There is a gold mine coming in connection with electricity, and that is why there is this great demand for concessions. We have seen it in London during the last two or three years. In the years to come, when some great Government scheme comes along, the country will be asked to put up large financial contributions in order to get back these powers which we are so easily conceding now.

Mr. WELLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not think the House realises what is taking place in regard to the production and distribution of electricity in the South of England. If one looks at the names of the directors of the Wessex Company we find that they have interests in electrical companies traversing 15 or 20 counties, and that so far as the supply of electricity is concerned, there is one mass of intertwined capital controlling the supply from Norfolk and Suffolk in the East to Somerset in the West, and from Shropshire and Staffordshire in the North to Dorset and Hampshire in the South. If a number of private companies controlled by a handful of individuals are to have such a great say in the development of electrical power, we may find ourselves in a very serious condition. It is in order to bring these facts before the House and the country that we are opposing those Bills.

Colonel ASHLEY: I wonder why it is that whenever any private enterprise Motion is put down on the Paper, hon. Members opposite seem to suspect—nay, more than suspect, accuse—the private enterprise concerned of improper motives and a desire to secure certain financial gains at the expense of the community. As a matter of fact, in many parts of the areas of these companies there is no prospect at all of making money. That is perfectly true of the rural areas. Many of these companies have been, for nine or ten years without any dividends at all. I am not going to make a long speech, because I do not think a long speech is required. What hon. Members opposite are entitled to know is, whether the entity—private company or municipality—which is given this territory to
look after and supply with electricity is in a position to serve the public properly and well; whether the public interest is sufficiently secured by control of prices, and whether certain precautions are taken to see that the municipality or private company develops the area within a reasonable time. That seems to me to be the only thing that the House of Commons ought to consider in these Bills.
In the first place the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was very doubtful about the finance—on what ground I do not know. At any rate, I can assure him that the Electricity Commissioners, who act under my own general direction, but who are a semi-independent body of very eminent men, always make it their first duty to satisfy themselves that the financial status of the company or municipality is sufficiently good to justify their handing a concession over to it. In the case of the Wessex Bill, I am assured personally by the Electricity Commissioners that they are fully satisfied that the company is in a financial position to undertake all the obligations which are contained in the Bill. The Electricity Commissioners' view is quite sufficient for me. They are my legal and technical advisers, and they are absolutely competent to decide the matter.
There are only two other matters with which we ought to concern ourselves. Are these companies going to charge too much, and is there any provision made that they shall properly develop, not only the good areas, but what I call the bad areas? As regards price, hon. Members can see for themselves that there are maximum prices put down and when the Act of 1926 comes into force—I hope it will within the next year and a half or two years certainly in this Wessex area—then a sliding scale of prices and dividends can be applied. That will ensure that the public will not be exploited as to price. As to the provision that they

shall not shirk their obligations, if hon. Members will turn to Clause 5 they will find the penalties for failure to carry out those obligations. The Clause reads:
If the company make default in laying down any distributing mains in accordance with the provisions of any order made by the Commissioners under Sub-section (4) of this Section they shall be liable for each default to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for each day during which the default continues, and if the Minister is of opinion in any case that the default is wilful and unreasonably prolonged he may after considering any representations of the local authority concerned revoke the powers of the company to supply electricity for lighting and general domestic purposes (including office purposes) in the area specified in the Order or any part thereof.

Having put that before the House there is no reason why a Second Reading should not be given.

Mr. KELLY: I am very much concerned about compensation for displacement of those whose services are dispensed with. Is provision made for compensation?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member knows there is compensation under the Act of 1926, because he and I took part in it upstairs, and I know he is anxious to get some Measure which will extend that. I have not looked up the point. Perhaps he will allow me to look into it and answer him later.

Orders of the Day — WESSEX ELECTRICITY BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 58.

Division No. 247.]
AYES.
[11.32 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bennett, A. J.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bevan, S. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burman, J. B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Apsley, Lord
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Calne, Gordon Hail


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Campbell, E. T.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Carver, Major W. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brass, Captain W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Christie, J. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Perring, Sir William George


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)


Cooper, A. Dun
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cope, Major Sir William
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Radford, E. A.


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raine, Sir Walter


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ruggies-Brlse, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Savery, S. S.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Dixey, A. C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Skelton, A. N.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Loder, J. de V.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fermoy, Lord
Long, Major Eric
Smithers, Waldron


Fielden, E. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lumley, L. R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macintyre, Ian
Templeton, W. P.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McLean, Major A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Goff, Sir Park
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Grace, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Captain D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wells, S. R.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exetar)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hannon Patrick Joseph Henry
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Ears


Hartington, Marquess of
Nuttall, Ellis
Wolmer, Viscount


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pennefather, Sir John
Wragg, Herbert


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Penny, Frederick George



Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sir Robert Sanders and Sir Henry Cautley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Riley, Ben


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O. (W. Bromwich)


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Janes, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thurtle, Ernest


Duncan, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dunnlco, H.
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gardner, J. P.
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lee, F.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Gillett and Mr. Wellock.


Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Mr. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SALARIES, ETC.).

Resolution reported,

That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the pro-visions of
the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, relating to probate, registrars, and registries, and certain other matters and otherwise to amend the Law with respect to the administration of justice and matters connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) all salaries, allowances, and other sums payable under the said Act to district probate registrars and clerks in district probate registries;
(b) any allowances payable under the said Act to registrars of county courts.—(The Attorney-General.)

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in the Order [28th June] relative to the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill (Allocation of Time), the Questions necessary to dispose of Clause 9 of that Bill in Committee shall not be put from the Chair at half-past Ten o'Clock on the third allotted day, but that Clause, if it be not previously disposed of, shall be included in the proceedings to be brought to a conclusion at
half-past Seven o'Clock on the fourth allotted day."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes before Twelve o'clock.